Skip to main content

Full text of "The works .."

See other formats 




ep 


Fi PETE? wm: 
De ae hans cal 





iti 


fe 


ee 
μῶν ΓΙ 
- 








Ψ' 


-΄ 


THE WORKS 


OF 


THE REV. JOSEPH BINGHAM, M.A. 


EDITED BY 
HIS LINEAL DESCENDANT 


THE REV. R. BINGHAM, JUN., M.A. 


FORMERLY OF MAGDALEN HALL, OXFORD, 
AND 


FOR MANY YEARS CURATE OF TRINITY CHURCH, GOSPORT. 





A NEW EDITION IN TEN VOLUMES. 


ΟΣ oN. 





OXFORD: 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


M.DCCC.LY, 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
University of Toronto 


https://archive.org/details/worksbingO6bing 


CONTENTS 
OF 
Shep tk nN Τ Ὴ BOO’ 


OF 


THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


BOOK XVI. 


OF THE UNITY AND DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 
Of the union and communion observed among Catholics in the ancient 
Church. 


Sect. I. Of the fundamental unity of faith and obedience to the laws of 
Christ, 1.—II. Of the unity of love and charity, as an essential part 
of Christian obedience, 10.—III. Other sorts of unity necessary to the 
well-being of the Church, r1r.—IV. Among these was reckoned, first 
the necessary use of one baptism, ordinarily to be administered by the 
hands of a regular ministry, 13.—V. Secondly, unity of worship, in 
joining with the Church in prayers and administration of the word and 
sacraments, 18.—VI. Thirdly, the unity of subjection of presbyters and 
people to their bishop, and obedience to all public orders of the Church, 
in matters of an indifferent nature, 26.—VII. Fourthly, the unity of 
submission to the discipline of the Church, 35.—VIII. How different 
Churches maintained communion with one another. First, in the com- 
mon faith, 37.—IX. Secondly, in mutual assistance of each other for 
defence of the common faith, 38.—X. Thirdly, in joining in communion 
with each other in all holy offices, as occasion required, 39.— XI. 
Fourthly, in mutual consent to ratify all legal acts of discipline, 
regularly exercised in any Church whatsoever, 44.—XII. Fifthly, in 
receiving unanimously the customs of the universal Church, and sub- 
mitting to the decrees of general Councils, 45.—XIII. Sixthly, in 

BINGHAM, VOL. VI. a 


iy CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. 


submitting to the decrees of national Councils, 47.—XIV. No necessity 
of a visible head to unite all parts of the Catholic Church into one com- 
munion, 49.—XV. Nor any necessity that the whole Church should 
agree in the same rites and ceremonies, which were things of an 
indifferent nature, 52.—XVI. What allowance was made for men, who, 
out of simple ignorance break communion with one another, 56.— 
XVII. Of different degrees of unity; and that no one was esteemed to 
be in the perfect unity of the Church, who was not in full communion 
with her, 59. 


CHAPTER II. 


Of the discipline of the Church, and the various kinds of it ; together with 
the various methods observed in the administration of it. 


Sect. I. That the discipline of the Church did not consist in cancelling 
or disannulling any man’s baptism, 63.—II. But in excluding men 
from the common benefits and privileges consequent to baptism, 64.— 
III. This power originally a mere spiritual power: though in some 
ceases the secular arm was called in to give its assistance, 64.—IV. This 
assistance never required to proceed so far, as for mere error to take 
away life, or shed blood, 72.—V. The discipline of the Church deprived 
no man of his natural or civil right; much less the magistrate of his 
power, or allegiance due to him, 81.—VI. But, consisted, first, in ad- 
monition of the offender, 83.—VII. Secondly, in suspension from the 
communion, called the lesser excommunication, 84.—VIII. Thirdly, in 
expulsion from the Church, called the greater excommunication, total 
separation, anathema, and the like, 87.—IX. This sort of excommuni- 
cation commonly notified to other Churches, 89.—X. After which he 
that was excommunicated in one Church was held excommunicate in 
all Churches, 9ρο.---Χ]. And avoided also in civil commerce and outward 
conversation: and allowed no memorial after death, 97—XII. The 
grounds and reasons of this practice, 102.—XIII. No donations or obla- 
tions allowed to be received from excommunicate persons, 105.—XIV. 
No one to marry with excommunicate heretics, or receive their eulogia, 
or read their books, but burn them, 105.—XV. What meant by deliver- 
ing unto Satan, 108.—XVI. What by anathema maranatha. And whe- 
ther any such forms were in use in the ancient Church, 115.—XVII. 
Whether excommunication was ever pronounced with execration, or 
devoting the sinner to temporal destruction, 118. 


CHAPTER III. 


Of the objects of ecclesiastical censures, or the persons on whom they 
might be inflicted: with a general account of the crimes for which they 
might be inflicted. 

Secr. I. All members of the Church, falling into great and scandalous 
crimes, made hable to ecclesiastical censures without exception, 125.— 
II. Women as well as men, 126.—III. The rich as well as the poor. No 
commutation of penance allowed, nor friendship, nor favour, 129.—IV. 


CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. vi 


What privilege some claimed upon the intercession of the martyrs in 
prison for them; and how this was answered by Cyprian, 129.—V. Ma- 
gistrates and princes subject to ecclesiastical censures as well as any 
others, 132.—VI. In what cases the greater excommunication was for- 
borne for the good of the Church, 146.—VII. The innocent never in- 
volved among the guilty in ecclesiastical censures. The original and 
novelty of Popish interdicts, 159.—VIII. The danger of excommuni- 
cating innocent persons, 163.—IX. No one to be excommunicated with- 
out being first heard and allowed to speak for himself, 165.—X. Nor 
without legal conviction, either by his own confession ; or credible evi- 
dence of witnesses, against whom there was no just exception; or such 
notoriety of the fact as made a man liable to excommunication ipso 
facto, without any formal denunciation, 166.—XI. Excommunication 
not ordinarily inflicted on minors, or children under age, 171.—XI1. 
How persons were sometimes excommunicated after death, 173.—XIII. 
The censures of the Church not to be inflicted for small offences, 175. 
—XIV. What the Ancients meant by small offences in this matter, and 
how they distinguished them from the greater, 177.—XV. Excommuni- 
cation not inflicted for temporal causes, 189.—XVI. No bishop allowed 
to use it to avenge any private injury done to himself, 192.—XVII. No 
man to be excommunicated for sins only in design and intention, 193.— 
—XVIII. Nor for forced or involuntary actions, 194. 


CHAPTER IV. 

A particular account of those called Great Crimes. Of transgressions of 
the First and Second Commandment. Of the principal of these, viz. 
idolatry. Of the several species of idolatry, and degrees of punishment 
allotted to them according to the proportion and quality of the offences. 


Sect. I. The mistake of some about the number of great crimes, in con- 
fining them to idolatry, adultery, and murder, 196.—II. The account 
given of great crimes in the civil law extended much further, 196.— 
IIL. In the ecclesiastical law the account of great crimes extended to the 
whole Decalogue, 198.—IV. A particular enumeration of the great 
crimes against the first and second commandments. Of idolatry, and 
the several species or branches of it, 198.—V. Of the sacrificati and 
thurificati, or such as fell into idolatry by offering incense to idols, or 
partaking of the sacrifices, 199.—VI. Of the libellatici. Wherein their 
idolatry consisted, 204.—VII. Of those who feigned themselves mad, to 
avoid sacrificing, 207.— VIII. Of contributors to idolatry. Of the fla- 
mines, munerarii, and coronati. What they were, and how guilty of 
idolatry, 208.—IX. How the office of the duumvirate made men guilty 
of idolatry, and how it was punished, 210.—X. How actors and stage- 
players, and charioteers, and other gamesters, and frequenters of the 
theatre and the circus, were charged with idolatry, and punished for it, 
212.—XI. Idol-makers, their crime and punishment, 213.—XII. The 
idolatry of building Heathen temples and altars, 216.—XIII. Of mer- 
chants selling frankincense to the idol-temples; and the buyers and 


a2 


vl CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. 


sellers of the public victims, 218.—XIV. Of eating things offered 
to idols. How and when it stood chargeable with idolatry, 219.—XV. 
Whether a Christian out of curiosity might be present at an idol- 
sacrifice, not joining in the service, 220.—XVI. Whether he might eat 
his own meat in an idol-temple, 223.—X VII. Or feast with the Heathen 
on their idol-festivals, 224.—XVIII. Of the idolatry of worshipping 
angels, saints, martyrs, images, &c., 233.—XIX. Of encouragers of 
idolatry and connivers at it. And of the contrary extreme in demolish- 
ing idols without sufficient authority to do it, 233. 


CHAPTER V. 


Of the practice of curious and forbidden arts, divination, magic, und en- 
ehantment: and of the laws of the Church made for the punishment of 
them. 


Secr. I. Of several sorts of divination. Particularly of judicial astrology, 
237.—II. Of augury and scothsaying, 243.—III. Of divination by lots, 
244.—IV. Of divination by express compact with Satan, 248.—V. Of 
magical enchantment and sorcery, 251.—VI. Of amulets, charms, and 
spells to cure diseases, 253.—VII. Of the prestigie, or false miracles 
wrought by the power of Satan, 260.—VIII. Of the observation of days 
and accidents, and making presages and omens upon them, 265. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Of apostasy to Judaism and Paganism ; of heresy and schism ; and of 
sacrilege and simony. 


Secr. I. Of such as apostatized totally from Christianity to Judaism, 270. 
—II. Of such as mingled the Jewish religion and the Christian together, 
272.—III. Of such as communicated with the Jews in their unlawful 
rites and practices, 274.—IV. Of such as apostatized voluntarily into 
Heathenism, 281.—-V. Of heretics and schismatics, and their punish- 
ments both ecclesiastical and civil, 284.—VI. A particular account of 
the civil punishments inflicted on them by the laws of the State, 284.— 
VII. How heretics were treated by the discipline of the Church. First, 
they were anathematized, and cast out of the Chureh, 289.—VIII. 
Secondly, debarred from entering the church by some canons, though 
not by all, 291.—IX. Thirdly, no one to encourage heretics and schis- 
matics by frequenting their assemblies, 293.—X. Fourthly, no one to 
eat or converse with heretics, or receive their presents, or retain their 
writings, or make marriages with them, &c.,295.—XI. Fifthly, heretics not 
allowed to be evidence in any ecclesiastical cause against a Catholic, 295. 
—XII. Sixthly, heretics not allowed to succeed to any paternal inherit- 
ance, 298.—XIII. No heretic to have promotion among the clergy 
after his return to the Church, 299.—XIV. No one to be ordained who 
kept any in his family that were not of the Catholic faith, 299.—XV. No 
one to bring his cause before an heretical judge under pain of excom- 
munication, 300.—X VI. What term of penance imposed upon relenting 


CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. vil 


heretics, 300.—XVII. How this varied according to the age and state 
and condition of several sorts of heretics, 302.—X VIII. Heresiarchs 
more severely treated than their followers, 303.—XIX. And voluntary 
deserters more severely than they who complied only out of fear, 304.— 
XX. A difference made between such heretics as retained the form of 
baptism, and such as rejected or corrupted it, 304.—XXI. No one to be 
reputed a formal heretic before he contumaciously resisted the ad- 
monition of the Church, 305.—XXII. The like distinctions observed in 
inflicting the censures of the Church upon schismatics, according to 
the different nature and various degrees of their schism, 306.— XXIII. 
Of sacrilege. Particularly of diverting things appropriated to sacred 
uses to other purposes, 307.—X XIV. Of sacrilege committed in robbing 
graves, 310.—XXV. The sacrilege of the ancient ¢raditores, who 
delivered up their Bibles and sacred utensils to the Heathen to be 
burnt, 313.—XXVI. The sacrilege of profaning the sacraments, and 
altars, and the Holy Scriptures, &c., 314.—XXVII. The sacrilege of 
depriving men of the use of the Scripture, and the Word of God, and 
the sacraments, particularly the cup in the Lord’s Supper, 317.— 
XXVIII. Of simony in buying and selling spiritual gifts, 319 —X XIX. 
Of simony in purchasing spiritual preferments, 322.—XXX. Of simony 
in ambitious usurpation of holy offices, and intrusion into other men’s 
places and preferments, 323. 


CHAPTER VII. 


Of sins against the Third Commandment, blasphemy, profane swearing, 
perjury, and breach of vows. 


Sect. I. The blasphemy of apostates, 327.—II. The blasphemy of 
heretics and profane Christians, 329.—III. The blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost. Where is particularly inquired, what notion the Ancients 
had of it; in what sense they believed it unpardonable; and what 
censures they inflicted on it, 331.—IV. Of profane swearing. All oaths 
not forbidden, 350.—V. But only the custom of vain and common 
swearing, 3560.—VI. And swearing by the creatures, 357.—VII. And by 
the emperor’s genius, and saints, and angels, &c., 360.— VIII. Of per- 
jury and its punishments, 364.—IX. Of breach of vows, 366. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Of sins against the Fourth Commandment, or violations of the law enjoining 
the religious observation of the Lord’s-day. 


Sect. I. Absenting from religious assemblies on the Lord’s-day how 
punished by the laws of the Church, 369.—II. Of frequenting some 
part of the Lord’s-day service, and neglecting the rest, 369.—III. Fast- 
ing on the Lord’s-day prohibited under pain of excommunication, 371. 
—IV. Frequenting the theatres and other shows and pastimes on this 
day how punished, 373. 


vill CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Of great transgressions against the Fifth Commandment, viz. disobedience to 
parents and masters ; treason and rebellion against princes ; and con- 
tempt of the laws of the Church. 


Sect. I. Children not to desert their parents under pretence of religion. 
The censure of such as taught otherwise, 375.—II. Children not to 
marry without the consent of their parents, 377.—III. Nor slaves with- 
out the consent of their masters, 380.—IV. The punishment of treason, 
and disrespect to princes, 381.—V. Contemners of the laws of the 
Church how censured, 385. 


CHAPTER X. 


Of great transgressions against the Sixth Commandment ; of murder and 
manslaughter, parricide, self-murder, dismembering the body, exposing of 
infants, causing of abortion, &c. 


Secr. I. Murder ever reckoned a capital and unpardonable crime by the 
laws of the State, 387.—-II. How punished by the laws of the Church, 
388.—III. The heinousness of murder when joined with other crimes, 
as idolatry, adultery, and magical practices, 389.—IV. Causing of abor- 
tion condemned and punished as murder, 390.—V. The punishment of 
parricide, 392.—VI. Self-murder, 393.—VII. Of dismembering the 
body, 394.—VIII. Of involuntary murder by chance or manslaughter, 
395-—IX. False witness against any man’s life reputed murder, 397.— 
X. Informers against the brethren in time of persecution treated as 
murderers, 398.—XI. Exposing of infants reputed murder, 399.—XII. 
If a virgin, deflowered by a rape, kills herself for grief, the corrupter is 
reputed guilty of the murder, 402.—XIII. The Janiste or fencing- 
masters reputed accessories to murder, and their calling condemned, 
402.—XIV. Spectators of the murders committed on the stage ac- 
counted accessories to murder also, 403.—XV. Famishers of the poor 
and indigent reputed guilty of murder, 404.—XVI. And all they by 
whose authority murder was committed, 405.—XVII. Enmity and 
strife and quarrelling punished as lower degrees of murder, 406. 


CHAPTER XI. 


Of great transgressions against the Seventh Commandment, fornication, 
adultery, incest, polygamy, &c. 


Sect. I. The punishment of fornication, 407.—II. Of adultery, 408.— 
III. Of incest, 412.—IV. Whether the marriage of cousin-germans was 
reckoned incest, 414.—V. Polygamy and concubinage, 418.—VI. Of 
marrying after unlawful divorce, 421.—VII. Of second, third, and 
fourth marriages, 427.—VIII. Of ravishment, 430.—IX. Of unnatural 
impurities, 431.—X. Of maintaining and allowing harlots, 434.—XI. Of 
writing and reading lascivious books, 438.—XII. Frequenting the 
theatre and stage-plays forbidden upon this account, 439.—XIII. As 


CONTENTS OF BOOK XVI. ΙΧ 


also all excess of riot and intemperance for the same reason, 443.— 
XIV. And promiscuous bathing of men and women together, 445.—XV. 
And promiscuous and lascivious dancing, wanton songs, &c., 448.— 
XVI. As also promiscuous clothing, or men and women interchanging 
apparel, 450.—XVII. And suspected vigils, or pernoctations of women 
in churches under pretence of devotion, 452. 


CHAPTER XII. 
Of great transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, theft, oppression, 
Fraud, δ. 


Sect. I. The censure of those heretics, who taught the doctrine of re- 
nunciation, or necessity of having all things common, 453.—II. Of 
plagiary or man-stealing, 454.—III. Of malicious injustice, 455.—IV. 
Of simple theft, 456.—V. Of detaining lost goods from the true owner, 
457-—VI. Of refusing to pay just debts, 458.—VII. And what men 
are bound to by the obligation of promise and contract, 459.—VIII. 
Of removing bounds and landmarks, 460.—IX. Of oppression, 461.— 
X. Of the exactions and bribery of judges, 464.—XI. Of the exactions 
of publicans, and collectors of the public revenues, and other officers of 
the Roman empire, 466.—XII. Of the exactions of advocates and law- 
yers, and apparitors of judges, 467.—XIII. Of griping usury and ex- 
tortion, 469.—XIV. Of forgery, 470.—XV. Of calumny with regard to 
men’s estates and fortunes: and the reverse of it, the fraud of adulation 
and flattery, 473.— XVI. Of deceitfulness in trust, 476.—XVII. Of de- 
ceitfulness in traffic, 478.—X VIII. Of abetting and concealing of rob- 
bers; buying stolen goods, &c., 485.—XIX. Idleness censured as the 
mother of robbery, 487.—XX. And gaming as an occasion of fraud, 
and ruin of many poor families, who by these means were reduced to 
the greatest exigence, 490. 


CHAPTER XIII. 
Of great transgressions against the Ninth Commandment, false accusation, 
libelling, informing, calumny and slander, railing and reviling. 


Sect. I. Of false witness, 493.—II. Of libelling, 496.—-III. Of detraction, 
whispering, and backbiting, 497.—IV. Of railing and reviling, or scur- 
rilous and abusive language: and of revealing secrets, 498.—V. Of 
lying. How far it brought men under the discipline of the Church, 
500. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Of great transgressions against the Tenth Commandment, envy, covetous- 

ness, δῸ. 


Sect. I. Whether envy brought men under the discipline of the Church, 
504.—II. Of pride, ambition, and vain-glory, 505.—III. Of covetous- 
ness, 506.—IV. Of carnal lusts, 506. 






2) S0e ae 99 αν 5} 


ian τ 
v iW WF warp tay (et Fey 
om ον ὩΔῊΝ huge oom νύ ak 
ie es ena δα pees με ἣν 
hipster Avie ge Sox ir 

Gey i 1. PUA) ot εν 


‘* 


Pinkie hs S~ 


age Ὗ ws a ᾿ γῶ- 

wh at ΤΠ) é “Ὁ ͵ β , 
ὙΠ] | ee 

δέον Ι ιν ᾿ ᾿ ει @e 

Tepe =e @! Ὁ. " ᾿ μὰ 

, ; - } 

ἀμ Φι wii. 4! Ψ “4 ; ogre 

spl ‘= ΡΥ λοι ᾿ 


2 ? bi ‘ wi Cove ‘al 
“eo, fi ὰ nna, ; 


Ὁ: 


THE ANTIQUITIES 


OF THE 


CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


BOOK XVI. : 


OF THE UNITY AND DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT 
CHURCH. 


CHAE. I 


Of the union and communion observed in the ancient 
Church. 


Ὶ; Tue design of ecclesiastical discipline being chiefly to Of the fun- 
preserve the unity of the Church in all necessary things, and ara 3 
keep it in purity and free from corruption by turning out un- faith and 
worthy members from her society and communion, and denying εἰ a aa 
them all the privileges that belong to it; nothing will be more of Christ. 
proper to usher in a discourse concerning the discipline of the 
ancient Church, than first to give a preliminary account of that 
union and communion which she laboured to preserve in all 
her members united in one mystical body under Christ her 
universal head. And here first of all the unity of faith was 
principally insisted on, as the foundation on which all other 
sorts of Christian unity were built: and next to this they re- 
quired the unity of holiness or obedience, that the Church 
might be one in observing! all the laws and institutions of 


Christ. 


1 Claget on Church Unity. (pp. the Tract.) That there must be some 
196-198, of his Works, pp. 2-4, of common foundation, &c..... The 

BINGHAM, VOL. VI. B 

47 


Q Union and XVI. 1. 


Some reckon the first sort of unity fundamental and essential 
to the very being of the Church, and all others only necessary 
to the well-being of it. But I conceive the Ancients accounted 
both the unity of faith and obedience necessary as fundamentals 
to the very being of the Church?, being both joined together 
by our Saviour as the rock on which his Church should be 
built. For as he says of faith, “ Upon this rock will I build 
my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it :” 
(Matth. 16, 18.) so he says of obedience to his laws, “ Who- 
soever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, J will 
liken him to a wise man, which built his house upon a rock : 
and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds 

*blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was 
founded upon a rock. But every one that heareth these say- 
ings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a 
foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain 
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat 
upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” 
(Matth. 7, 24-27.) St. Luke, in relating the same passage, 
words it thus: “ He that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man 
that without a foundation built an house upon the earth, 
against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immedi- 
ately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.” (Luke 6, 
49-) So that obedience as well as faith is part of that founda- 
tion upon which the Church of Christ is built: and he that 
retains not the unity of obedience wants an essential part of its 
foundation, and is not a real living member of Christ’s mystical 
body, but only a broken or a withered branch of it. In regard 
to which our Saviour says in another place, “ Whosoever shall 
break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men 
so, he shal! be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” 
(Matth. 5. 19.) 

Upon this account when he sent his Apostles to teach all 
nations he enjoined them two things, first, “To baptize them 
in the name (or faith) of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost:” and secondly, “To teach them to observe 
all things whatsoever he had commanded them.” (Matth. 28, 


Church ought to be one. In ob- 2 Vid. Augustin. de Unit. Eccles. 
serving all the institutions and com- c. 21. See ἢ. 20, following. 
mands of our Lord Jesus, το. 


communion. 3 


1gand 20.) And for the same reason the ancient Church never 
admitted any persons to baptism, which was the ordinary door of 
admitting proselytes and uniting them as members to the body 
of the Church, without first obliging them to do these two 
things : first, to make profession of the primary articles of the 
Christian faith: and secondly, to promise or bind themselves 
by a strict engagement and vow to live in holy obedience to 
the laws and institutions of Christ: as I have fully shown in 
a former Book®, treating of the necessary conditions required 
of men before their baptism. Where I have particularly re- 
marked out of St. Austin, that he wrote that excellent book, 
De Fide et Operibus, to show the necessity of obedience and 
good works as well as faith to the being of a Christian, against 
some who pretended that the profession of faith in Christ, and 
not the profession of obedience to his laws, was necessarily to 
be required of men in order to unite them as Christians to the 
body of the Church by baptism. They said men were to be 
baptized and united to the Church so long as they kept the 
foundation of faith entire, whatever wicked works they built 
thereupon : for these would be purged away by certain punish- 
ments of fire, and they would obtain salvation at the last by 
virtue of the foundation which they retained. To which St. 
Austin replies, that this was a false interpretation of the Apo- 
stle’s meaning; and that however these men were so im- 
pudent, as to charge the Church’s practice with novelty; 
yet it was always a firm custom obtaining in the Church 
to reject professed workers of iniquity from baptism, and 
constantly refuse them the communion of the Church: and 
this was grounded upon the rules of ancient truth, which mani- 
festly declared that they which do such things shall not in- 
herit the kingdom of God. Since therefore both faith and 
obedience were reckoned essentially necessary to baptism, they 
must be concluded equally necessary to preserve men in the 
real and perfect unity of the Church; unless we could suppose 
that any thing was necessary to make a man a Christian that was 
not necessary to make or keep him a member of the Church. 

If it be now inquired what articles of faith, and what points 
of practice were reckoned thus fundamental, or essential to the 
very being of a Christian and the union of many Christians 

3B. 11. ch. 7. 5.6. v. 4. .p. 126. 
B 2 


4 Union and KVL & 


into one body or Chureh: the Ancients are very plain in re- 
solving this. For as to fundamental articles of faith, the 
Church had them always collected or summed up out of Serip- 
ture in her Creeds, the profession of which was ever esteemed 
both necessary on the one hand and sufficient on the other, in 
order to the admission of members into the Church by baptism ; 
and consequently both necessary and sufficient to keep men in 
the unity of the Church, so far as concerns the unity of faith 
generally required of all Christians to make them one body 
and one Church of believers. Upon this account, as I have 
had occasion to show in a former Book+*, the Creed was com- 
monly called by the Ancients, the κανὼν and regula fidei, 
because it was the known standard or rule of faith by which 
orthodoxy and heresy were judged and examined. If a man 
adhered to this rule he was deemed an orthodox Christian, 
and in the union of the Catholic faith: but if he deviated from 
it in any point, he was esteemed as one that had cut himself 
off, and separated from the communion of the Church, by en- 
tertaining heretical opinions and deserting the common faith. 
Thus the fathers, in the Council of Antioch®, charge Paulus 
Samosatensis with departing from the rule or canon, meaning 
the Creed, the rule of faith, because he denied the divinity of 
Christ. Irenzus® calls it ‘the unalterable canon or rule of 
faith ἢ and says? ‘this faith was the same in all the world; 
men professed it with one heart and one soul: for though 
there were different dialects in the world, yet the power of the 
faith was one and the same. The Churches in Germany had 
no other faith or tradition than those in Spain, or in France, 
or in the East, or Egypt, or Libya. Nor did the most eloquent 
ruler of the Church say any more than this; for no one was 
above his Master: nor the weakest diminish any thing of this 
tradition. For the faith being one and the same, he that said 


most of it could not enlarge it; 


4 B. ro. ch. 3: s. 2. Vv. 3. p. 497: 

5 Ep. C. Antioch. ap. Busch 1:4. 
ς. 30. (Vv. I. p. 360. 29.) Ὅπου δὲ 
ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ 
νόθα διδάγματα μετελήλυθεν, οὐδὲν 
δεῖ τοῦ ἔξω ὄντος τὰς πράξεις κρί- 
νειν. 


6 L.1.¢. 1. p. 44. (p. 44. 2.) ‘O rov 


nor he that said least take any 


κανόνα τῆς, ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ 
κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος 
ethnge. 

7 Ibid. c. 3: (p. 46. 2.) Ταύτην τὴν 
πίστιν... .. ἡ ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλῳ 
τῷ κόσμῳ dceomappém, ἐπιμελῶς φυ- 
λάσσει, κ. τ. λ.---ϑΞῬ'ε6. Ὁ. 10. ch. 4. 


8. I. V. 3. Ῥ. 518. N- 33. 


ἣν communion. 5 


thing from it’ So Tertullian $ says, ‘ There is one rule of faith 
only, which admits of no change or alteration, that which 
teaches us to believe in one God Almighty, the maker of the 
world, and in Jesus Christ his Son, &c.’ ‘This rule,’ he says?, 
‘was instituted by Christ himself, and there were no disputes 
in the Church about it, but such as heretics brought in or such 
as made heretics. To know nothing beyond this was to know 
all things.’ ‘This faith!° was the rule of believing from the 
beginning of the Gospel, and the antiquity of it was sufficiently 
demonstrated by the novelty of heresies, which were but of 
yesterday’s standing in comparison of it. Cyprian says”, it 
was the law which the whole Catholic Church held, and that 
the Novatians themselves baptized into the same Creed, though 
they differed about the sense of the article relating to the 
Church. Therefore Novatian, in his Book of the Trinity, 
makes no scruple to give the Creed the same name, regula 
veritatis, the rule of truth. And St. Jerom?? after the same 
manner, disputing against the errors of the Montanists, says, 
‘the first thing they differed about was the rule of faith. For 
the Church believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be 


8 De Virgin. Veland. c. 1. [Sem- 
ler, c. 13.] (p. 173 a.) Regula qui- 
dem fidei una omnino est sola im- 


bolo quo et nos, baptizare, &c..... 
sciat, quisquis hoc opponendum 
putat, primum, non esse unam 


mobilis, irreformabilis, credendi sci- 
licet in unicum Deum Omnipoten- 
tem, mundi Conditorem, et Filium 
jus Jesum Christum, natum ex 

irgine Maria, &c. 

9 De Preescript. c. 14. (p. 207 a.) 
Hee regula, a Christo, ut proba- 
bitur instituta, nullas habet apud 
nos questiones, nisi quas hereses 
inferunt, et que hereticos faciunt. 
....Adversus regulam nihil scire, 
omnia scire est. 

10 Cont. Prax. c. 2. (p. 501 c.) 
Hance regulam ab initio Evangelii 
decuctrrisse, etiam ante priores 

uosque hereticos, nedum ante 
raxeam hesternum, probabit tam 
ipsa posteritas omnium heretico- 
Tum, quam ipsa novellitas Praxe 
hesterni. 

ll Ep. 76. [al. 69.) ad Magn. 
Ῥ. 183. (p. 296.) Quod si aliquis 
iullud opponit, ut dicat, eandem No- 
vatianum legem tenere, quam Ca- 
tholica ecclesia teneat, eodem sym- 


nobis et schismaticis symboli legem, 
neque eandem interrogationem. Nam 
cum dicunt, Credis remissionem 
peccatorum et vitam eternam per 
sanctam ecclesiam? mentiuntur in 
interrogatione, quando non habeant 
ecclesiam. 

12 De Trinit. c. 1. (ap. Galland. 
t. 3. p. 287 a.) Regula exigit verita- 
tis, ut primo omnium credamus in 
Deum Patrem et Dominum Omni- 
potentem, &c.—C. 9. (ibid. p. 293 a.) 
Eadem regula veritatis docet nos, 
credere post Patrem etiam in Filium 
Dei, &c. 

13 Ep. 54. [al. 41.] ad Marcellam. 
(t. 1. p. 186 e.) Primum in fidei 
regula discrepamus. Nos Patrem, 
et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, in 
sua unumquemque persona poni- 
mus, licet substantia copulemus: 
illi, Sabellii dogma sectantes, ‘Trini- 
tatem in unius persone angustias 
cogunt. 


6 Union and “Ὡ XVL x 


each distinct in his own Person, though united in substance : 
but the Montanists, following the doctrine of Sabellius, con- 
tracted the Trinity into one Person.’ 

From all this it is evident that the fundamental articles of 
faith were those which the primitive Church summed up in her 
Creeds, in the profession of which she admitted men as mem- 
bers into the unity of her body by baptism; and if any deserted 
or corrupted this faith, they were no longer reputed Christians, 
but heretics, who brake the unity of the Church by breaking 
the unity of the faith, though they had otherwise made no 
further separation from her communion. For as Clemens Alex- 
andrinus 1: says, out of Hermes Pastor, ‘ Faith is the virtue 
that binds and unites the Church together. Whence Hege- 
sippus !°, the ancient historian, giving an account of the old 
heretics, says, ‘ they divided the unity of the Church by per- 
nicious speeches against God and his Christ :’ that is, by de- 
nying some of the prime, fundamental articles of faith. ‘ He 
that makes a breach upon any one of these, cannot maintain 
the unity of the Church, nor his own character as a Christian.’ 
‘We onght therefore,’ says Cyprian 15, ‘in all things to hold 
the unity of the Catholic Church, and not to yield in any thing 
to the enemies of faith and truth.’ ‘ For he cannot be thought 
a Christian’? who continues not in the truth of Christ’s Gospel 
and faith.’ ‘If men be heretics,’ says Tertullian 15, ‘ they can- 
not be Christians.’ The like is said by Lactantius, and Jerom, 
and Athanasius, and Hilary, and many others of the Ancients, 
whose sense upon this matter I have fully represented in an- 
other 19 place. As therefore there was an unity of faith neces- 
sary to be maintained in certain fundamental articles in order 
to make a man a Christian: so these articles were always to 


14. Stromat.1. 2. (p.458. 19.) H τοί- 
νυν συνέχουσα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν... ἀρετὴ, 
ἡ πίστις é€ott.—Conf. Herm. Past. 
]. 1. Vis. 3. c. 8. (Cotel. v. 1. p. 81.) 
Prima quidem earum, que [turrim] 
[nempe ecclesiam] continet manu, 
fides vocatur: per hanc salvi fiunt 
electi Dei, &c. 

15 Ap. Euseb. 1. 4. 6. 22. (v. 1. 
p. 183. 9.).... Οἵ τινες ἐμέρισαν τὴν 
ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριμαίοις λό- 
γοις κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 


16 Ep. 71. ad Quint. p. 194. (p. 


303-).... Per omnia debemus eccle- 
sie Catholice unitatem tenere, nec 
in aliquo fidei et veritatis hostibus 
cedere. 

17 De Unit. Eccles. p. 114. (p. 82.) 
....Nec Christianus videri potest, 
qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus 
et fidei veritate. 

18 De Prescript. c. 37. (p. 215 c.) 
Si heretici sunt, Christiani esse non 
possunt. 

19 B. 1. ch. 3. 8. 4. V. £. p. 29. j 


communion. 7 
be found in the Church’s Creeds; the profession of which was 
esteemed keeping the unity of the faith; and deviating in any 
point from them was esteemed a breach of that one faith, and 
a virtual departing from the unity of the Church. 

As to the other points of obedience to the laws and institu- 
tions of Christ, which were reckoned fundamental and essential 
to the being of a Christian and the unity of the Church, they 
were generally summed up in those short forms of renouncing 
the Devil, and his service and his works, and covenanting with 
Christ to live by the rules of his Gospel. By which they 
understood the renouncing all gross sins, such as idolatry, 
witcheraft, murder, injustice, intemperance, uncleanness, and 
whatever might be called worldly and fleshly lusts, contrary to 
the general tenour of the Gospel, and “ the grace of God which 
had appeared unto all men, teaching us, that denying ungodli- 
ness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and 


- godly in this present world.” [Tit. 2, 11 and 12.] They that 


walked after this rule, and squared their lives by these general 
measures and lines of duty; “ adding to their faith virtue, and 
to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to 
temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godli- 
ness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity ;” 
[2 Pet. 1, 5-7.] these were the true Israel of God, and in the 
perfect unity of his Church: as long as they did these things 
they could “never fall:” nothing could separate them from his 
Church, or from the love of God in Christ Jesus: “for so an 
entrance was ministered to them abundantly into the ever- 
lasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 
{ibid. 11.] But if men went contrary to this rule, walking in 
the works of the flesh, and not of the Spirit, professing to 
know God, but in works denying him; though they might be 
corporeally and externally united to the visible body of the 
Church, yet internally and spiritually they were divided from 
it. St. Austin 2° says expressly, ‘that though men were re- 


* thol. Ep. cont. Donatist. 


20 De Unit. Eccles. [4]. Ad Ca- 

Cc. 21. (t.9. 
p. 378 g. et p. 379 a.) Cum igitur 
boni et mali dent et accipiant bap- 
tismi sacramentum, nec regenerati 
spiritaliter in corpus et membra 
Christi cozdificentur nisi boni: pro- 


fecto in bonis est illa ecclesia, cui 
dicitur, Sicut lilium in medio spina- 
rum, ita proxima mea in medio filia- 
rum. In his est enim qui edificant 
super petram, id est, qui audiunt 
verba Christi, et faciunt..... Non 
est ergo in eis, qui edificant super 


8 Union and XVL 1. 


generated by baptism, yet none but the good were spiritually 
built up into the body and members of Christ: the good only 
compose that Church of which it is said, “As the lily among 
thorns so is my love among the daughters.” (Cant. 2,2.) That 
Church consists only of those who build upon the rock, that is, 
who hear the words of Christ, and do them. They therefore 
are not of that Church who build upon the sand, that is, who 
hear the words of Christ, and do them not. And as they who 
by the ligaments of charity are incorporated into the building 
that is founded upon the rock, and into the lily that shines 
among thorns, shall inherit the kingdom of God: so they who 
build upon the sand, and are numbered among the thorns, shall 
as certainly not inherit the kingdom of God.’ A little after", 
reciting those words of the Apostle, (Gal. 5, 19-21.) “ The 
works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, for- 
nication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, withcraft, hatred, 
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, 
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which 
I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they 
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” 
he adds, ‘ all those are not in the lily, nor upon the rock, and 
heretics are in that number.’ . Again 35, speaking of the grace 
of the Spirit which sanctifies good men, he says, ‘ This is 
wanting in all the wicked and sons of hell, although they be 
baptized with the baptism of Christ, as Simon Magus was bap- 
tized.’ ‘ There are many such® who communicate in the 


arenam, id est, qui audiunt verba 


Christi, et non faciunt.... Qui ergo 
compage caritatis incorporati sunt 
zedificio super petram constituto, et 
lilio inter spinas candenti, ipsi uti- 
que possidebunt regnum Dei. Qui 
autem super arenam edificant, vel 
in spinis deputantur, quis dubita- 
verit, quod regnum Dei non possi- 
debunt ? 

21 Tbid. c. 22. (p. 379 d.) Mani- 
festa, inquit, sunt opera carnis, que 
sunt fornicationes, immunditie, luxu- 
rie, idolorum servitus, veneficia, ini- 
micitie, contentiones, emulationes, 
animositates, dissensiones, hereses, 
invidie, ebrietates, comessationes, et 
his similia, que predico vobis, sicut 


predixi, quoniam qui talia agunt, 
regnum Dei non possidebunt. Omnes 
itaque isti non sunt in lilio, nee su- 
per petram: inter hos autem et he- 
retici positi sunt. 

22 Ibid. c. 23. (p. 382 c.) Hoe de- 
est omnibus malignis et gehenne 
filiis, etiam si Christi baptismo bap- 
tizentur, sicut Simon fuerat bapti- 
zatus. 

23 Ibid. c. 25. (p. 386 ς.) Et multi 
tales sunt in sacramentorum com- 
munione cum ecclesia, et tamen jam 
non sunt in ecclesia. Alioquin si 
tune quisque preciditur, cum visi- 
biliter excommunicatur, consequens 
erit, ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum 
visibiliter communioni restituitur. 


communion. 9 


sacraments with the Church, and yet they are not now in the 
Church. Such are cut off before they be visibly excommuni- 
eated: and if they be visibly excommunicated, and visibly re- 
stored to communion ; if they come with a feigned mind, and 
an heart opposing the truth and the Church, they are not 
reconciled, they are not inserted into the Church, although the 
solemnity of reconciliation be performed upon them.’ In an- 
other place he says, ‘The wicked multitude of the Church 
are not reckoned to be in the Church, save only so far as they 
have the same sacraments in common with the saints, because 
they have only a form of godliness, but deny the power of it.’ 
He repeats the same frequently in his Books against Cresco- 
nius 35, and other places, which it is needless here to repeat at 
length. I only observe, that as charity was reckoned one 
essential part of a Christian’s virtue; our Saviour having made 
it the characteristic note of his disciples; “ By this shall all 
men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for 
another :” {John 13, 35.] so the Ancients laid a great stress 
upon this one virtue, without which they never reputed any 
man to be truly in the unity of the Church, whatever claim he 


could otherwise lay to the communion of it. 


Quid si ergo fictus accedat, atque 
adversus veritatem et ecclesiam cor 
inimicissimum gerat, quamvis pera- 
gatur in eo illa solemnitas, num- 
quid reconciliatur, numquid inseri- 
tur? Absit. 

24 Ibid. c. 13. (p. 361 f.) Plerum- 
que enim sermo divinus impias tur- 
bas ecclesiz, que nec in ecclesia de- 
putantur, tamen propter sacramenta, 
que cum sanctis communiter ha- 
bent, quia inest in eis quedam forma 


pietatis, cujus virtutem negant, (sic- ἢ 


ut ait Apostolus, Habentes formam 
pietatis, virtutem autem ejus abne- 
gantes,) sic redarguit, tanquam om- 
nes tales sint, et nullus bonus om- 
nino remanserit. 

25 Cont. Crescon. 1. 1. c. 29. (t. 9. 
p- 405 g-) Non autem existimo, &c. 
See ἢ. 26, following.—L. 2. 6. 15. 
(p. 418 e.) Ista quippe in baptizatis 
et baptizantibus visibili baptismo re- 
periuntur. Ad illum tamen fontem 
proprium, cui nemo communicat ali- 
enus; ad illum fontem signatum, 


hoc est, ad Spiritus Sancti donum, 
quo caritas Dei diffunditur in cor- 
dibus nostris, nullus istorum nisi 
mutatus accedit, ita omnino mun- 
dandus, ut non sit alienus, sed sit 
celestis particeps pacis, sancte so- 
cius unitatis, plenus individue cari- 
tatis, civis angelice civitatis——C. 21. 
(p. 422 f.) Qui enim mente perversa 
videtur intus esse, cum foris sit, ab 
ipso Christo jam judicatus est..... 
Omnia quippe ista monstra absit 
omnino ut in membris illius co- 
lumbe unice computentur: absit 
ut intrare possint limites horti con- 
clusi, cujus ille custos est, qui non 
potest falli—C. 33. (p. 432 a.)..-. 
Nec propter malos, qui videntur esse 
intus, deserendi sunt boni, qui vere 
sunt intus.—C. 34. (p. 432 d.) Qui 
[scil. mali] cum sint a bonis vita 
moribusque spiritaliter separati, cor- 
poraliter tamen eis in ecclesia viden- 
tur esse permixti usque in diem ju- 
dicii, quo etiam corporaliter debitas 
separabuntur ad peenas. 


10 Union and XVLi. 


Of the 2. “1 do not think any man,’ says St. Austin2®, ‘so vain and 
soa aed foolish, as to believe such an one to appertain to the unity of 


charity, as the Church who has not charity. 
an essential e 


For St. James speaking 


partof against those who thought it sufficient to believe, but would 
aren not do good works, says, “ Thou believest that there is one 


God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble.” 
[James 2,19.] Certainly the devils are not in the unity of 
the Church; and yet we cannot say they believe otherwise of 
Christ than the Church believes, seeing they said to the Lord 
Jesus Christ himself, “ What have we to do with thee, thou 
Son of God?’ [Matth. 8, 9.] and St. Paul says, “ Though 
I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have 
not charity, Iam nothing.” [1 Cor. 13, 3.]’ ‘They that are 
enemies to this brotherly charity,’ says St. Austin again 27, 
‘whether they are openly out of the Church, or seem to be 
within, they are false Christians and Antichrists. When they 
seem to be within, they are separated from that invisible union 
or bond of charity. Whence St. John says of them, “ They 
went out from us; but they were not of us.” He does not say, 
they were made aliens by going out, but because they were 
aliens before, he declares that therefore they went out.’ ‘ This 
charity was necessary to incorporate men into that building 38, 
which was founded upon the rock of obedience, without which 
it could not stand: to uphold the structure, charity was re- 
quired as a principal part of the foundation, whereupon the 


26 Ibid. (p. 405 f.) Non autem 
existimo quenquam ita desipere, ... 


non habeam, nihil sum. 
27 De Bapt. 1. 3. c. 19. (t. 9. p. 


ut credat ad ecclesiz pertinere uni- 
tatem eum, qui non habeat carita- 
ee eee De fide etiam Jacobus 


apostolus, cum loqueretur adversus* 


eos, qui sibi quod crediderant suf- 
ficere arbitrabantur, et bene operari 
nolebant, Tu credis, inquit, quo- 
niam unus Deus est; bene facis, et 
deemones credunt, et contremiscunt. 
Nempe in unitate ecclesia deemones 
non sunt, nec ideo tamen possumus 
dicere aliud esse quod credunt, cum 
et Domino Jesu Christo dixerint, 
Quid nobis et tibi est, Fili Dei? 
Unde et Paulus apostolus, Si ha- 
beam, inquit, omnem fidem, ita ut 
montes transferam, caritatem autem 


119 d, e.) Hujus autem fraterne 
caritatis inimici, sive aperte foris 
sint, sive intus esse videantur, 
pseudochristiani sunt et antichristi. 
.... Cum intus videntur, ab illa 
invisibili caritatis compage separati 
sunt. Unde Johannes dicit, Ex no- 
bis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis: 
nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansis- 
sent utique nobiscum. Non ait 
quod exeundo alieni facti sunt; sed 
quod alieni erant, propter hoc eos 
exisse declaravit. 

28 Vid. August. de Unit. Eccles. 
c. 21. (t. 9. p. 379 b.) .... Compage 
caritatis incorporati sunt zdificio 
super petram constituto. 


§ 2, 3. communion. 11 


whole building rested, being fitly framed together, and united 
by charity into one, as members of the mystical body of 
Christ.’ 

3. After this manner the Ancients commonly discoursed of Other sorts 
these sorts of unity, which I call fundamental to the very being ies 
of a Church; being so absolutely necessary and essential, as to the well- 
that the Church could not consist without them, they were pen tle 
necessary to every individual, and necessary in all cases and 
circumstances whatsoever: there being no case in which it was 
lawful to deny the faith; nor any case that could dispense with 
a man’s obligations to sobriety, godliness, righteousness, and 
charity. There were other sorts of unity necessary indeed to 
the well-being of the Church, but yet not so absolutely es- 
sential but that a man in some extraordinary cases and cir- 
cumstances might be incapacitated or hindered in the actual 
performance of them, without incurring the censure of break- 
ing the unity of the Church, or being wholly excluded out of 
her communion. 

It is every Christian’s duty to unite himself to the Church 
by baptism, and to receive it from the hands of a regular 
ministry: it is his duty to join in communion with the Church 
where he lives, and assemble with them for worship and pray- 
ers, and administration of the word and sacraments, and all 
other holy offices: it is his duty to live under the government 
of a regular and lawful ministry, and submit himself to all the 
rules of the Church in worship and discipline, that are not 
contrary or repugnant to the Word of God. But then it may 
happen that a man cannot have baptism, though he be never 
so desirous of it; sudden death may prevent him, whilst he is 
seriously preparing for it. In this case the Church did not 
deny him her communion, though he was never formally 
entered into it, but accepted the will for the deed, and treated 
him after death as one of her sons dying in her bosom and 
communion. Which was the case of many martyrs, and others 
dying without baptism, not out of contempt, but by the 
exigence of some unforeseen accident preventing them. So 
again it might happen, that a man in extremity, when he was 
desirous of baptism, could not have it but from the hands of 
an heretic or a layman. In this case the Church was equally 
favourable to the party so baptized, because he was united in 


12 Union and XVL. i. 


heart and will to the Church, and it was not contempt of her 
ministry, but necessity that drove him to receive baptism from 
an heretic or a layman, rather than die without it. In like 
manner a man that was very desirous to join with the Church 
in her public assemblies, might notwithstanding by some great 
exigence be debarred from this privilege, as by sickness, or 
imprisonment, or banishment: in which case he was not di- 
vided from the communion of the Church in worship or pray- 
ers; but his spirit was still present in her religious assemblies, 
though necessity obliged him in body to be absent from them. 
Or if it were but the care of the indigent that required his 
help, and kept him away from the solemn meeting in God's 
house, his reason was good, and such an act was no breach of 
Christian unity, because God himself allows it; nay, requires 
it by his own rule, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice :” 
which in such cases, where men act sincerely and trifle not 
with God, is always their justification, both before God and his 
Church. ͵ 

It was further required, that men should comply with all 
the innocent: customs and lawful orders of the Church; and 
especially submit to her discipline in case of any scandalous 
transgression or immorality: but if men by reason of sickness, 
or infirmity, or old age, could not observe her rules about fast- 
ing ; or by reason of their poverty could not abstain from their 
ordinary labour to attend her festivals ; these were not reckoned 
transgressions of her rules or good order, because they na- 
turally admitted of such limitations and exceptions: and no 
man was accused as a divider of the Church’s unity for going 
against her customs in such cases. So, though it was required 
that penitents under discipline should be reconciled to the 
Church by imposition of hands and absolution, yet if any real 
penitent who was desirous of absolution happened to be struck 
dumb, or die before he could receive it, this was reckoned no 
prejudice to his condition: in this case his good will and desire 
and intention of being reconciled was reputed sufficient to re- 
store him to the peace and unity of the Church, though he 
wanted the formality of an external absolution. 

This was the great difference between those sorts of unity 
which were reckoned fundamental and essential to the very 
being of a Church, and those which were required as necessary 


§ 3,4. communion. 13 


to the well-being of it: the former admitted of no dispensations ; 
but the latter did in these and the like cases. No case could 
dispense with a man’s putting away a good conscience, or 
making shipwreck of faith: no necessity could be so great 
as to justify a man in denying an essential or fundamental 
truth, or in living in open and professed violation of those 
necessary rules and great lines of duty, which require the 
practice of universal holiness in a godly, righteous, sober life, 
as the indispensable condition of salvation: but several neces- 
sities might dispense with men in the non-observance of the 
things of the latter kind; and therefore it is of great use 
carefully to distinguish these things in speaking of the unity” 
of the Church. As therefore I have spoken particularly of 
the former, so I will now speak a little more distinctly of 
these latter, and show how far the Ancients urged the neces- 
sity of them. 

4, And here first of all they required that men should unite Among 
themselves to the Church by baptism, and that administered en 
but once; and this also to be administered ordinarily by the *st, the 
hands of a regular ministry, except some urgent necessity ene 
obliged them to do otherwise. The necessity of baptism they paar 

ke y 
urged from the tenour of the commission given to the Apostles, to be ad- 
“Go, baptize all nations:” and from those words of our Savi- aro 
our, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot of a regular 
enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3, 5.) There were gi 
many heretics, who contemned the use of water-baptism as a 
carnal ordinance, and wholly denied the necessity of it to sal- 
vation in any case whatsoever, of whom I have given a parti- 
cular account? in a former Book. Against these they urged 
the necessity of baptism in all ordinary cases, to make men 
members of the Church; and strenuously maintained, that men 
who wilfully neglected or despised baptism could not by any 
other means be united to the Church of Christ, or have any 
grounds for hope of eternal life; because they despised that 
ordinance of Christ which he had made the regular and ordi- 
nary way of admitting members into his Church, and refused 
to enter by that door which he had appointed to be the ge- 


neral entrance to eternal life. 


3 


29 B. χο. ch. 2. v. 4. p. 15. 


14 Union and XVL i. 


This opinion of the Ancients concerning the necessity of 
baptism in all ordinary cases, maintained against those several 
heresies, the reader may find fully discoursed in a foregoing 
part®° of this work; where I observed, that though they 
strictly urged the necessity of baptism in order to make men 
members of the Church and sons of God; expressing them- 
selves severely against all that either carelessly neglected it, 
. or profanely despised it; yet they did not believe it to be so 
simply and absolutely necessary as the unity of faith and re- 
pentance: because they always maintained, that the bare want 
of baptism, where there was no contempt, might be supplied 
by martyrdom ; where the exhibiting of faith, and the greatest 
testimony of obedience that could be given, was sufficient to 
unite them to Christ and his Church in that case, and grant 
them all the privileges of Christian communion. And the like 
was determined concerning the faith and repentance of such 
catechumens as were piously preparing for baptism, but were 
snatched away by sudden death before they had any oppor- 
tunity to receive it. Which shows that they put a manifest 
difference between the unity of faith and obedience, as funda- 
mental and essential to the very being of a Church, the want 
of which nothing could supply; and the unity of baptism, 
which though ordinarily necessary to the well-being of the 
Church, yet was not so absolutely necessary and essential, but 
that the want of it might be supplied in some cases by faith 
and obedience; and by these a martyr or a pious catechumen 
might be presumed to die in the unity of the Church without 
baptism, when they had no opportunity to receive it. 

The form of baptism itself indeed, whenever it was ad- 
ministered, was a little more necessary, because that implied a 
profession of faith in the Holy Trinity, and universal obedience 
to the laws of Christ; and therefore baptism administered in 
any other form was reputed null and void even in the Church 
itself, and was of necessity to be repeated; but then this ne- 
cessity did not rise from the bare necessity of baptism, which 
might, as we have heard, be dispensed with in some eases, but 
from the necessity of faith and obedience, presupposed as ante- 
cedent qualifications, essential to the very being of a Church, 


30 B. ro. ch. 2. 8: 19. V. 3. Pp. 475; 


§ 4. 


communion. 15 


and the character of a Christian in the largest denomination. 
So that what made this so absolutely necessary was not the 
absolute necessity of baptism itself, which might be dispensed 
with in some extraordinary cases, where those qualifications 
were really in the hearts of men before baptism: but it was 
the want of those qualifications, or at least the want of pro- 
fessing them in due form, that made the baptism void; because 
there was a strong presumption that they had not those quali- 
fications that were essential to the very being of a Christian, 
since no profession was made of them in their baptism. For 
which reason, whether it was given in the Church, or out 
of the Church, it was always to be repeated, as a thing null 
and yoid, for want of those qualifications of faith and obedi- 
ence, which were so indispensably required to make a man a 
Christian. ᾿ , 

It was necessary also to the unity of the Church in its well- 
being that baptism should ordinarily be administered only by 
the hands of a regular ministry: and therefore for either lay- 
men without a commission in the Church to usurp this au- 
thority, or for heretics and schismatics without the Church to 
assume this power, was always esteemed a great breach of the 
Church’s unity. And though the Church did not always annul 
such baptisms, if given in due form of words; yet she always 
condemned the thing as an usurpation, and an act of criminal 
schism,and manifest prevarication both in the giver and volun- 
tary receiver. Insomuch that one of the ancient Councils*} 
orders, ‘ that if any Catholic offered his children to be baptized 
by heretics, his oblation should not be received in the Church.’ 
This was in effect to punish him with excommunication, as 
an encourager of heretics, and a divider of the unity of the 
Church. And St. Jerom*? says, to the same purpose, ‘If a 
man, who is orthodox in his own faith, is wittingly and willingly 
baptized by heretics, he deserves no pardon for his crime.’ But 
then it might happen, that a man in extremity might be so 
distressed as to have none but an heretic to baptize him; in 


31 C. Tlerdens. c. 13. (t. 4. p. 32 Dialog. cum Lucifer. c. 5. [al. 
1613 Ὁ.) Catholicus, qui filios suos 12.] (t. 2. p. 184 a.) Si jam ipse 
in heresi baptizandos obtulerit, ob- bene credebat, et sciens ab hereticis 
latio illius in ecclesia nullatenus re- baptizatus est, erroris veniam non 
cipiatur. meretur. 


Union and j XVI. 1. 


16 


which case, to receive baptism from the hands of an heretic or 
schismatic was reckoned no breach of Catholic unity, because 
the man in heart and mind was still united to the Catholic ᾿ 
Church. This is St. Austin’s®? resolution of the case. ‘If a 
man,’ says he, ‘is compelled by extreme necessity, where he 
cannot have a Catholic to give him baptism, to take it at the 
hands of one who is not in Catholic unity; in that case we 
reckon him no other than a Catholic still, though he died im- 
mediately, because he was in heart and mind a Catholic, and 
would have been baptized in Catholic unity, if there had been 
any opportunity to have done it. If such an one survives, and 
corporally joins himself to the Catholic congregation, from 
which in heart he never departed, we not only not disallow 
what he has done, but securely and truly commend him for it : 
because he believed God to be present in his heart, where he 
preserved unity, and would not depart out of this life without 
the sacrament of baptism, which he knew to be God’s, and not 
men’s, wheresoever he found it. But if any one, when he might 
receive it in the Catholic Church, by some perverseness of 
mind, chooses rather to be baptized in schism, though he after- 
ward design to return to the Church, because he is certain the 
sacrament will profit him in the Church, but not elsewhere, 
though he may receive it elsewhere: this is a perverse and 
wicked man, and so much the more perniciously such, by how 
much the more knowing he is.’ In another place®4 he proposes 


83 De Βαρί.]. τ. 6. 2.(t.9. p.81b.) invenit, non hominum sed Dei esse 


Nam si quem forte coegerit extrema 
necessitas, ubi Catholicum per quem 
accipiat non invenerit, et in animo 
pace Catholica custodita, per aliquem 
extraCatholicam unitatem [positum ] 
acceperit, quod erat in ipsa Catholica 
unitate accepturus, si statim etiam 
de hac vita emigraverit, non eum 
nisi Catholicum deputamus. Si au- 
tem fuerit a corporali morte libera- 
tus, cum se Catholice congregationi 
etiam corporali prasentia reddiderit, 
unde nunquam corde discesserat, 
non solum non improbamus quod 
fecit, sed etiam securissime veris- 
simeque laudamus : quia prasentem 
Deum credidit cordi suo, ubi unita- 
tem servabat; et sine sancti bap- 
tismi sacramento, quod ubicunque 


cognovit, noluit ex hac vita migrare. 
Si quis ‘autem, cum possit in ipsa 
Catholica accipere, per aliquam men- 
tis perversitatem eligit in schismate 
baptizari; etiamsi postea venire ad 
Catholicam cogitat, quia certus est 
101 prodesse sacramentum, quod 
alibi accipi quidem potest, prodesse 
autem non potest; procul dubio 
perversus et iniquus est, et tanto 
perniciosius, quanto scientius. 

34 Ibid. 1. 6. c. 5. (p. 164 a.).... 
Potest salubriter accipere [scil. a se- 
parato], si ipse non separatus acci- 
piat: sicut plerisque accidit, ut Ca- 
tholico animo et corde ab unitate 
pacis non alienato, aliqua necessi- 
tate mortis urgentis in aliquem he- 
reticum irruerent, et ab eo Christi 


§ 4. 


communion. 17 
the same question, Whether a Catholic without breach of unity 
might receive baptism from a schismatic? and he answers it 
after the same manner: ‘That he may safely receive it of a 
separatist, if he himself be no separatist when he receives it ; 
for so it often happens to men, who have a Catholic mind, and 
an heart no ways alienated from the unity of peace, that in 
extreme necessity and danger of imminent death they light 
upon some heretic, and receive the baptism of Christ at his 
hands, but not with the perverseness or heretical pravity of 
the administrator. For whether they die or live, they do not 
remain among heretics, to whom in heart they never went 
over.” So again, distinguishing baptized persons into three 
sorts; first, such as are baptized in the house of God, and are 
truly and spiritually of the house of God; secondly, such as 


are baptized in the house of God, but are spiritually by wicked 


works separated from it; thirdly, such as are baptized in he- 
resy or schism, who are corporally separated from the house 
of God, and worse than those who live carnally within it, and 
are only spiritually divided from it; he adds#°,—‘ Concerning 
this last sort, who are rather to be said to be of the house of 
God than in it, being further separated by corporal division, 
than those who are only spiritually divided from it, that they 
neither have baptism to any profit themselves, neither is it re- 
ceived with any profit from them, except where the necessity 
of receiving it forces a man to receive it from them, and the 
mind of the receiver does no ways recede from the bond of 
unity.’ By which is intimated, that to receive baptism in case 
of necessity from the hands of an heretic or schismatic, does 
not involve a man in the guilt of schism, so long as it is a case 
of extreme necessity, and the man in heart and mind is all the 
time in the unity of the Catholic Church. 

The case was the same with those that were baptized by lay- 
men. The rules of the Church required, that none should bap- 
tize, in ordinary cases, but the regular and lawful ministers of 


domo quam ex domo sunt, neque 


baptismum sine illius perversitate 
perciperent, et sive defuncti, sive 
liberati, nequaquam apud eos rema- 
nerent, ad quos nunquam corde 
transierant. 

85 Tbid. 1. 7. c. 52. (p. 201d.) Qui 
autem separatiores non magis in 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


omnino utiliter habent, neque ab eis 
utiliter accipitur, nisi forte aceipi- 
endi necessitas urgeat, et accipientis 
animus ab unitatis vinculo non re- 
cedat. 


18 Union and XVI. i 


the Church; and to do otherwise, was always a note of criminal 
schism: but in case of extremity, she granted a general com- 
mission even to laymen to baptize, rather than any person in 
such an exigence should die without baptism; and in such a 
case, to receive baptism from a layman was neither usurpation 
nor schism in the giver or receiver, because they had the 
Church’s authority for the action. I produce no proofs or evi- 
dence for this here, because I have done it fully in a separate 
discourse before®>, treating historically of the practice of the 
Church in reference to her allowance of baptism administered 
by laymen, in cases extraordinary, when men were in apparent 
danger of death, and could not have a minister to baptize them. 

In all these cases, we see, nothing but extreme necessity 
could excuse men from criminal schism, in dividing themselves 
from the Church, either by the neglect of baptism, or seeking 
to heretics, or schismatics, or laymen for the administration of 
it. And the like is to be said of any man’s suffering himself to 
be rebaptized, after he had once received a true baptism, whe- 
ther in the Church or out of it. For the unity of baptism was 
such, that it was never to be repeated. The greatest apostates 
were never rebaptized by the Catholic Church upon their ad- 
mission again, but taken in by imposition of hands and absolu- 
tion upon their repentance. Neither did the Church ever re- 
baptize those that were baptized in heresy or schism, except 
when some doubt was made, whether the baptism was defective 
in some essential part of it. And therefore because many he- 
retics were inclined to rebaptize the Catholics, very severe laws 
were made, both in Church and State, to repress this insolence: 
of which I have given a particular account in handling the 
subject of baptism heretofore®®, and need only now observe, 
that this practice of rebaptizing was always esteemed a schisma- 
tical act, and a notorious breach of Catholic unity, which never 
allowed of more than one baptism, according to that rule of the 
Apostle, “ One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” [Eph. 4, 5.1 in 
the Church, as many of the Ancients expound it; or, at least, 
because by the divine will it was so appointed. 


Secondly, 5. Another sort of unity, requisite to the well-being of the 
the unity 


% [Scholastic History of Lay- this edition. Ep.] 
Baptism. London, 1712. 8vo. Re- 36 B 12. ch. 5. 8. 7. V. 4. p. 24.3. 
produced in the ninth volume of 


19 


Church, was the unity of worship, whereby all Christians were of worship 
obliged to join with their respective Churches in the perform- ἵν {Ns 
ance of all holy offices in public; such as common-prayer, and Church in 
the administration of the word and sacraments. Which did not se i μων 
require that all Churches should exactly agree in the same tion of the 
form of words, which were not essential to me things : for, as hase 
we shall presently see, every Church was at liberty to make 
choice for herself, in what method and form of words she 
should perform these things: and it was no breach of unity tor 
different Churches to have different modes, and circumstances, 
and ceremonies, in performing the same holy offices, so long as 
they kept to the substance of the institution: but that, which 
was required to keep the unity of the Church in these matters, 
was, that every particular member of any Church should com- 
_ ply with the particular custom and usages of his own Church, 
(nothing being inserted into her offices that was unlawful,) and 
meet for religious worship, and hold constant communion with 
her in the performance of all divine services. And to do other- 
wise, either by neglecting wholly the service of religious assem- 
blies, or setting up opposite communions, or raising unneces- 
sary disputes about the lawful usages and innocent practices 
of the Church, whereof a man was a member, was always 
esteemed an act of criminal schism, as giving scandal and of- 
fence to the Church and his brethren. 

There are several canons in the Council of Gangra, made 
against the separatists called Lustathians, directly to this pur- 
pose. The fourth canon?” runs thus: ‘If any one separate 
from a married presbyter, upon pretence that it is unlawful to 
partake of the oblation, when he performs the liturgy, or ce- 
lebrates the office of communion, let him be anathema :’ that 15, 
excommunicate, or cut off from the Church. The fifth canon** 
is to the same effect: ‘If any one teach, that the house of God, 
and the assemblies held therein, are to be despised, let him be 
anathema. ‘The sixth®9 forbids all private and irregular as- 


communion. 


37 [C. 4. (t. 2. p. 419 a.) Ei res δια- 
κρίνοιτο παρὰ πρεσβυτέρου γεγραμη- 
κότος, ἁ ὡς μὴ χρῆναι λειτουργήσαντος 
αὐτοῦ | προσφορᾶς μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀνά- 
θεμα ἔστω. 

38 C. 5. (ibid. a.) Εἴ τις δίδασκοι, 
τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ “εὐκαταφρόνητον 
εἶναι, καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ συνάξεις, ἀνά- 


θεμα ἔστω. 

39 C, 6. (ibid. a.) Et τις παρὰ τὴν 
5 ’ 7 > , ‘4 
ἐκκλησίαν ἰδίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζοι, Kat κατα- 
φρονῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας ἐθέλοι πράττειν, μὴ συνόντος τοῦ 
πρεσβυτέρου κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκό- 

» , »” - 

που, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Grischov. | 


σ2 


20 Union and XVI i. 
semblies: ‘If any hold other assemblies privately out of the 
church, and contemning the church will have ecclesiastical 
offices performed without a presbyter licensed by the bishop, 
let him be anathema.’ The eleyenth#° censures those in like 
manner, who despised the feasts of charity, made in honour of 
the Lord, refusing to partake of them. The eighteenth*! cen- 
sures ‘such as fasted on the Lord’s-day, under pretence of 
leading an ascetic life;’ this being a thing contrary to the 
general rule and custom of the Church. The nineteenth*?, on 
the other hand, censures ‘such ascetics as, without the excuse 
of bodily infirmity, out of mere pride, contemptuously broke 
the common fasts handed down by tradition to be observed in 
the Church.’ And the twentieth canon‘? anathematizes those 
‘who, from an insolent disposition, contemned the assemblies 
that were wont to be held in the churches of the martyrs, and . 
the service performed there, and the commemorations of them.’ 
Among the Apostolical Canons there is one** to the same pur- 
pose, which orders, ‘that if any presbyter, despising his bishop, 
gather a separate congregation, and erect another altar, having 
nothing to object against his bishop in point of godliness or 
righteousness, he should be deposed as a lover of pre-eminence, 
and arbitrary power or tyranny in the Church. And if any of 
the clergy conspired with him, they were likewise to be de- 
posed, and laymen to be suspended from the communion, after 
a third admonition given them from the bishop.’ 

These were some of the ancient rules relating to separatists, 
dividing wholly from the Church, and refusing contemptuously 


40 [C. II. (ibid. ec.) Et τις karappo- 
voin τῶν ἐκ πίστεως ᾿ἀγάπας ποιούν- 
των, καὶ διὰ τιμὴν τοῦ Κυρίου. συγκα- 
λούντων τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς, καὶ μὴ ἐθέλοι 
κοινωνεῖν ταῖς κλήσεσι, διὰ τὸ ἐξευτε- 
λίζειν τὸ γινόμενον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

41 Ὁ. 18. (ibid. Ρ- 424 b.) Εἴ τις 
διὰ νομιζομένην ἄ ἄσκησιν ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ 
4 5 ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

42 C. το. (ibid. b.) Εἴ τις τῶν 
ἀσκουμένων χωρὶς σωματικῆς ἀνάγκης 
ὑπερηφανεύοιτο, καὶ τὰς παραδεδομέ- 
νας νηστείας εἰς τὸ κοινὸν, καὶ φυλασ- 
σομένας ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, παραλύοι, 
ἀποκυροῦντος ἐν αὐτῷ τελείου λογισ- 
μοῦ, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

48 Ὁ, 20. (ibid. ς.) Εἴ τις αἰτιῷτο, 


ὑπερηφάνῳ διαθέσει κεχρημένος, καὶ 
βδελυσσόμενος τὰς συνάξεις τῶν μαρ- 
τύρων, ἢ τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς γινομένας λει- 
τουργίας, καὶ τὰς μνήμας αὐτῶν, ἀνά- 
θεμα ἔστω. Grischov. | 

44 C. 30. al. 32. (Cotel. [c. 24.] v. 
I. p. 441.) Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος κατα- 
φρονήσας τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου χωρὶς 
συναγάγῃ, καὶ θυσιαστήριον “ἕτερον 
men» μηδὲν κατεγνωκὼς τοῦ ἐπισκό- 
που ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, κα- 
θαιρείσθω ἁ ὡς φίλαρχος" τύραννος γάρ 
ἐστιν' καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοὶ, ὅ ὅσοι ἂν 
αὐτῷ προσθῶνται᾽ οἱ δὲ λαϊκοὶ ἀφορι- 
ζέσθωσαν. Ταῦτα δὲ μετὰ μίαν καὶ 
δευτέραν, καὶ τρίτην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου 
παράκλησιν γινέσθω. 


§ 5. 


et communion. ot 


to communicate with her in divine service. And for such as 
frequented some part of the service, but fell off from the rest, 
she set an equal mark of reproach upon them, as disobedient 
children also. One of the Apostolical Canons*> orders all com- 
municants, who came to church to hear the Scriptures read, 
but did not stay to join in prayers and receiving the eucharist, 
to be suspended, as authors of confusion and disorder in the 
Church. And the Council of Antioch4® repeats, and reinforces 
this canon. The Council of Eliberis47 forbids the bishop to re- 
ceive the oblations of such as did not communicate: which was 
in effect to cut them off from communion with the Church, for 
the neglect of that principal part of divine service. The same 
Council in another canon‘® orders, ‘that if any one, being at 
home in his own city, did for three Lord’s-days together ab- 
sent himself from church, he should be suspended from the 
communion for an equal term, that he might be made sensible 
of his crime by the Church’s censure.’ The Council of Sardica, 
not long after, made a decree to the same purpose, referring 
to some former canon that had been made upon this matter, 
which, though some learned men are at a loss to know what 
canon it was, seems plainly to be this canon of the Council of 
Eliberis. For Hosius, bishop of Corduba, was present at both 
these Councils, and presided in that of Sardica, which makes it 
probable that he referred to the canon of Eliberis, when he 
proposed it to the fathers at Sardica for their consent and ap- 
probation. For the Council of Sardica*? repeats a canon made 
in some former Council, importing, ‘ that a layman, absenting 
from church for three Lord’s-days together, without just cause 
or impediment, was to be excommunicated for his transgres- 


sion :’ 


45 C, 7. al. το. [Labb. c.9.] See 
before, b.15. ch. 4. 5. τ΄ v. 5. p. 251. 
n. 36. 

46 C. 2. 
n. 37. 

47 C. 28. See before, ibid. ch. 9. 
8.1. V. 5. p- 538. n. 67.—Conf. C. 
Tolet.1.¢.13. See ibid. n. 68. 

48 C. 21. (t.1. p.973 b.) Si quis 
in civitate positus tres Dominicas 
ff ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto 

al. pauco] tempore abstineat, ut 
correptus esse videatur. 


See before, ibid. p. 352. 


and the same is repeated in the Council of Trullo5°, So 


49 C. 11. (t. 2. p. 6378. ) Μέμνησθε 
καὶ ἐν τῷ προάγοντι χρόνῳ τοὺς πα- 
τέρας ἡμῶν κεκρικέναι, ἵνα εἴ τις λα- 
ἱκὸς ἐν πόλει διάγων τρεῖς Κυριακὰς 
ἡμέρας ἐν τρισὶν ἑβδομάσι μὴ συνέρ- 
χοιτο, ἀποκινοῖτο τῆς κοινωνίας. 

50 C. 80. (t.6. p.1178 a.) Ef τις 
ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, 
ἢ τῶν ἐν κλήρῳ καταλεγομένων, ἢ ἢ λα- 
ἵκὸς, εἰ μηδεμίαν ἀνάγκην βαρυτέραν 
ἔχοι, ἢ πρᾶγμα δυσχερὲς, ὥστε ἐπὶ 
πλεῖστον ἀπολείπεσθαι τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐκ- 
κλησίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πόλει διάγων τρεῖς 


99 Union and XVL.i. 


careful was the Church to preserve her members in the unity 
of divine worship, and discountenance all separatists whether 
partial or total, that an occasional communicant was liable to 
censure as well as any other. 

But then there were some necessary reasons that might 
justly excuse a man from this duty of constant communion 
with his own Church. As if a man was in a journey, the very 
nature of the thing was his excuse: for he could not commu- 
nicate with his own Church in such a necessity, and therefore 
the Council of Trullo delivers the rule with that limitation. If 
a man was sick and infirm, his infirmity was such an impedi- 
ment, as all laws, both human and divine, would allow of as a 
reasonable cause of absenting. And the same reason would 
excuse his non-observance of the severe fasts of the Church, 
which were imposed upon none but those that were able to 
bear them, as appears from the forecited canon*! of the Coun- 
cil of Gangra. The stationary days of fasting and prayer were 
chiefly designed for the exercise of religious ascetics, those who 
had both strength and leisure to attend them: and therefore 
an infirm man, or a poor man, who was to live by his bodily 
labour, was under no obligation to spend so much time in those 
ordinary returns of fasting and prayer. If he communicated 
with the Church religiously on the Lord’s-days, his omissions 
of the rest were not imputed to him as breaking communion 
with the Church. If men were in prison or in banishment, the 
necessity of their confinement was their natural excuse. For 
how should they join bodily in communion with the Church, 
who had not the liberty of their own bodies, whilst they were 
entirely at the mercy and disposal of others? It was sufficient 
for them in such a case to join in spirit, when they could not in 
bodily presence ; and to say with David, “As the hart panteth 
after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. 
My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I 
come and appear before God?” (Ps. 42,1.) And, “ Woe is 
me, that 1 am constrained to dwell with Mesech, and to have 
my habitation among the tents of Kedar.” (Ps. 120, 4.) “O 
God, my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth after thee, in 
Κυριακὰς ἡμέρας ἐν τρισὶν ἑβδομάσι τῆς κοινωνίας. 


μὴ συνέρχοιτο, εἰ μὲν κληρικὸς εἴη, 51 C,19. See n. 42, preceding. 
καθαιρείσθω" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀποκινείσθω 


ὃ 5. 


communion. 23 


a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; to see thy power 
and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.” (Ps. 
63, 1 and 2.) It was their misfortune, and not their crime in that 
case, to be absent from the house of God: meanwhile the whole 
world was to them the temple of God: “For the earth is the 
Lord’s, and the fulness thereof!” [See Ps. 24,1, and 1 Cor. 
10, 26 and 28.] Their prison was their oratory, and the wil- 
derness a sanctuary; their own hearts a sacrifice, and their 
own bodies an altar. When Lucian the martyr made use of 
his own breast®? in chains instead of a communion-table to 
offer the eucharist on, his sacrifice was as acceptable to God as 
if it had been in the midst of the Church upon an altar. For, 
as St. Basil 53 words it, ‘in such a case it is not the place, but 
the mind and affection of the supplicant, that God regards. 
Moses was heard in the bottom of the sea, Job upon a dunghill, 
Ezekias in his bed, Jeremy in the dungeon, Jonas in the whale’s 
belly, Daniel in the lions’ den, the three children: in the burn- 
ing fiery furnace, the penitent thief upon the cross, and Peter 
and Paul in prison.’ ‘Every place, says Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria 53, ‘is instead of a temple in time of persecution, whether 
it be a field, or a wilderness, or a ship, or an inn, or a prison.’ 
There is a great difference to be made between necessity 
and contempt. Ifa man voluntarily absents himself from the 
assemblies of the Church, when he may enjoy them, he is a 
divider of her unity, by contemning her service: but if neces- 
sity obliges him to be absent, when he is desirous to be pre- 
sent, he is spiritually present with her even whilst he is absent 
in body: which is as much preserving her unity as his case will 
allow, or the Church can require: seeing this sort of unity is 
not simply essential to the being of a Church in all states, but 
only necessary to her well-being in peaceable times and ordi- 
nary cases. And happy would it be for the Church if men 
would never deny themselves the benefit of her communion in 
religious assemblies, but upon such reasons of necessity, which 
carry their own apology at first sight in their very nature: if 
they were merely passive, and not active, in their separation, 
52 See b. 15. ch. 4. 8. 8. v.5. p. hortat., &c. 
380. n. 20. δά Ap. Euseb. 1. 7. c. 22. See 
53 Exhort. ad Bapt. ap. Durant. before, Ὁ. 15. ch. 4. 8. 10. v. 5. Ρ. 


De Ritibus, 1. 1. c. 2. ἢ. 1. (p. 5.) 385. ἢ. 42. 
Non enim locus, ait Basilius in Ex- 


24 Union and XVI. i. 


such a separation would not inyolve them in the guilt of 
schism, being so rationally to be accounted for both before 
God and his Church. 

The primitive Church was exceedingly happy in these two 
things, which relate to this sort of unity in communion, the 
want of which is so much to be lamented, both in its causes 
and effects in this unhappy divided state of the Church in later 
ages. First, that no Church then ever assumed to herself an 
authority of imposing upon her members any things unlawful, 
or contrary to the Word of God, either in faith or practice, as 
necessary terms of communion. They required no belief of any 
articles of faith, as necessary to salvation, but such as were 
contained in their common Creeds, and founded upon the in- 
fallible authority of Scripture. They inserted nothing into 
their public forms of worship repugnant to the Word of God, 
or intrenching upon any divine rule given in Scripture about 
the object or matter or manner of adoration: as any one may 
perceive, by considering the account that has been given of 
their public worship and liturgy in the three last books, where 
we examined every particular office of it. Things being thus 
secured for the substance of their worship, all Christian people 
in the next place thought it their duty to submit to the wisdom 
and prudence of their governors in establishing things external 
and circumstantial relating to expedience, edification, and good 
order. 

And this was the second thing to be admired in the economy 
of the ancient Church, that the people never had any dispute 
with their superiors about matters of this kind, but left all in- 
different things, and things of expediency, decency, circum- 
stance, and form, to the judgment and choice of their go- 
vernors, or persons invested with authority to determine such 
matters; readily complying with the innocent customs of the 
Church, and all the rules of public order, and never dividing 
into sects and parties upon the account of rites and ceremonies, 
though differently practiced in different Churches. This was 
according to the wise and peaceable rule laid down by St. Aus- 
tin in his advice to Casulanus®3, ‘In those things,’ says he, 


98 Ep.86.[al.36.]c.1.(t.2.p.68e.) parvo scandalo erit ecclesie, nec 
Et quisquis tamen hune diem je- immerito. - In his enim rebus, de 
junio decernendum putaverit, non quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura 


§ 5: 


communion. 25 
* concerning which the holy Scripture has given no positive 
direction, the custom of the people of God, or the rules of our 
ancestors or superiors, are to be taken for a law.’ He instances 
in the custom of the Church never to fast on the Lord’s-day, 
which was become so much a rule, that whoever should pretend 
to introduce the contrary custom, to make it a fast, should be 
thought to give great scandal to the Church, and that not 
without good reason. ‘Nay,’ he says*, ‘it would be to offend 
God, so to scandalize the universal Church by holding a fast 
on the Lord’s-day ; especially since it was become the practice 
of the impious Manichees so to fast in opposition to the Church.’ 
The Saturday-fast was not a custom of so general observation ; 
for some Churches kept it a fast, and some a festival: but his 


advice as to this is much of the same nature®°, ‘that a man 


should observe the custom of every Church, where he happened 
to be, if he was minded neither to give offence to them, nor take 
offence from them: and this advice, he says, he had in his 
younger days from the mouth of St. Ambrose. But because in 
such a matter as this is, it might happen that not only different 


divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta 
majorum pro lege tenenda sunt.— 
Ibid. c. 7. (p. 74 c.).... Quis non 
Deum offendet, si velit cum scan- 
dalo totius, quz ubique dilatata est 
[4]. dilatatat |, ecclesie, die Domi- 
nico jejunare? 

54 [Ibid. c.12. (p. 78 f.) Die au- 
tem Dominico jejunare scandalum 
est magnum, maxime postea quam 
innotuit detestabilis multumque fi- 
dei Catholic Scripturisque divinis 
apertissime contraria heresis Mani- 
cheorum, qui suis auditoribus ad 
jejunandum istum tanquam consti- 
tuerunt legitimum diem; per quod 
factum est, ut jejunium diei Domi- 
nici horribilius haberetur. Grischov. | 

55 Thid. c. 14. (p.81 b.) Sed quo- 
niam non invenimus... in evange- 
licis et apostolicis literis, que ad 
Novi Testamenti revelationem pro- 
prie pertinent, certis diebus aliqui- 
bus evidenter preceptum obser- 
vanda esse jejunia, et ideo res quo- 
que ista, sicut alie plurime, quas 
enumerare difficile est, invenit in 
veste illius filie regis, hoc est, ec- 
clesiz, varietatis locum; indicabo 


tibi, quid mihi de hoc requirenti re- 
sponderit venerandus Ambrosius, a 
quo baptizatus sum, Mediolanensis 
episcopus. Nam cum in eadem ci- 
vitate mater mea mecum esset, et 
nobis adhuc catechumenis parum 
ista curantibus, 116 solicitudinem 
gereret, utrum secundum morem 
nostre civitatis sibi esset Sabbato 
jejunandum, an ecclesiz Mediola- 
nensis more prandendum, ut hac 
eam cunctatione liberarem, interro- 
gavi hoc supra dictum hominem 
Dei. At ille, Quid possum, inquit, 
hine docere amplius, quam ipse facio? 
Ubi ego putaveram, nihil eum ista 
responsione precepisse, nisi in Sab- 
bato pranderemus ; hoc quippe ip- 
sum facere sciebam: sed ille se- 
cutus adjecit, Quando hic sum, non 
jejuno Sabbato ; quando Rome sum, 
jejuno Sabbato: et ad quamcunque 
ecclesiam veneritis, inquit, ejus mo- 
rem servate, si pati scandalum non 
vultis aut facere. Hoc responsum 
retuli ad matrem eique suffecit, nec 
dubitavit esse obediendum: hoc 
etiam nos secuti sumus. 


26 XVI. i. 


Union and 


Churches might practice differently, but also the members of 
the same Church might differ in their practice one from an- 
other without breach of communion, as it was in some of the 
African Churches, where in one and the same Church some 
chose to fast, others to dine upon the Sabbath, his advice to 
Casulanus 55 as a presbyter was, ‘ to follow the custom of those 
who had the care and government of the Churches committed 
to them.’ ‘ Resist not your bishop in such a matter as this, but 
follow what he does without any scruple or disputation.’ 

6. And this leads us to consider another sort of unity, very 
necessary for the well-being of the Church: which was that 
the clergy and people should be united under one single bishop 
in every Church, paying a due respect to his authority, and 
not dividing from him either by setting up anti-bishops against 

him, or withdrawing from his communion or government, or 
toall public despising the public orders of his Church, which were made 
orders of 2 : - = “Leys 
the Church for expedience and edification in matters of an indifferent 
in matters nature. Cyprian has abundance relating to this sort of unity, 
ferent na- considering both the state of his own and other Churches. 
or ‘The Church,’ he says*®, ‘is a people united to their bishop, 
and a flock adhering to their pastor.’ Whence he infers ‘ that 
the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop ;’ 
and ‘that whoever are not with the bishop are not in the 
Church :’ that is, none who voluntarily withdraw from his com- 
munion and set up others in opposition to it. To the same 
purpose he says again°7, ‘ that the ordination of bishops and 
the constitution of the Church came down by succession from 
the Apostles, so as that the Church stood upon its bishops, and 


Thirdly, 
the unity 
of subjec- 
tion of 
presbyters 
and people 
to their 
bishop, and 
obedience 


55 Ibid. (p. 81 6.) Sed quoniam 
contingit maxime in Africa ut una 
ecclesia, vel unius regionis ecclesiz, 
alios habeant Sabbato prandentes, 
alios jejunantes, mos eorum mihi 
sequendus videtur, quibus eorum 
populorum congregatio regenda 
commissa est....Episcopo tuo in 
hac re noli resistere, et quod facit 
ipse, sine ullo scrupulo vel discep- 
tatione sectare. 

56 Ep. 69. [4]. 66.] ad Florent. 
p. 168. (p. 286.).... Ecclesia sunt 
plebs sacerdoti adunata, et pastori 
suo grex adherens. Uude scire 
debes episcopum in ecclesia esse, et 


ecclesiam in episcopo ; et si qui cum 
episcopo non sint, in ecclesia non 
esse. 

57 Ep. 27. (al. 33.] ad Laps. p. 66. 
(p. 216.) Inde per temporum et suc- 
cessionum vices, episcoporum ordi- 
natio et ecclesiz ratio decurrit, ut 
ecclesia super episcopos constitu- 
atur, et omnis actus ecclesiz per 
eosdem preepositos gubernetur. Cum 
hoc itaque divina lege fundatum sit, 
miror quosdam audaci temeritate sic 
mihi scribere voluisse, ut ecclesiz 
nomine literas facerent ; quando ec- 
clesia in episcopo et clero et in om- 
nibus stantibus sit constituta, &c. 


communion. ΟΥ̓ 


every act of the Church was regulated by their direction as 
the chief governors of it.’ And therefore when some lapsers 
wrote to him, giving themselves the name of the Church, he 
gave them a very sharp answer, telling them, ‘he could not 
but wonder at their temerity and boldness, that they should 
style themselves the Church, when it was so plain by the 
divine law that a Church consisted of a bishop and clergy 
together with a people standing firm without lapsing in time of 
persecution; whereas no number of lapsers could be called a 
Church, since God was not the God of the dead but of the 
living.’ In another place he severely rebukes the presumption 
of those presbyters who took upon themselves by their own 
authority to reconcile lapsers without consulting him, who was 
the chief manager and director of the discipline of the Church. 


‘This, he tells them®’, was ‘to forget both the rules of the 


Gospel and their own station; neither thinking of the future 
judgment of the Lord nor the bishop that was now set over 
them, but assuming to themselves the whole power of disci- 
pline, both to the dishonour and contempt of their bishop and 
to the detriment of their brethren’s salvation.’ 

Τὸ was an ancient rule in the Church that presbyters should 
do no ministerial act but by the authority of their bishop, and 
in dependence upon and subordination to him. This I have 
had occasion to show at large in a former Book®9, out of 
Ignatius, Cyprian, and the ancient Councils, which need not 
here be repeated. Therefore it was always reputed a tendency 
towards schism for presbyters to do any such act in contempt 
of their bishop, though they made no formal separation from 
him. But the most flagrant act of schism was when in despite 
of his authority their factious humour and pride pushed them 
on to divide from his communion and set up separate assemblies 
in opposition to him. ‘This,’ says St. Cyprian, ‘is the first 


58 Ep. το. [al. 16.] ad Cler. p. 36. 
(p. 194.)....Aliqui de presbyteris, 
nec evangelii, nec loci sui memores, 
sed neque futurum Domini judicium, 
neque nunc sibi przpositum episco- 
pum cogitantes. . .cum contumelia et 
contemptu preepositi totum sibi vin- 
dicant, &c. 

=. @. ch. 3. 8. 2, &c. v. 1. 


60 Ep. 65. [al.3.] ad Rogatian. p.6. 
(p. 173.) Hee sunt enim initia he- 
reticorum, et ortus atque conatus 
schismaticorum male cogitantium, 
ut sibi placeant, et preepositum su- 
perbo tumore contemnant. Sic de 
ecclesia receditur, sic altare pro- 
fanum foris collocatur, sic contra 
pacem Christi et ordinationem atque 
unitatem Dei rebellatur. 


88 Union and XVL. i. 


beginning of heretics, the first rise and attempt of schismatics, 
men of evil dispositions, to please themselves, and with a 
swelling pride contemn the bishop that is set over them. The 
effect of which is presently to forsake the Church, and set up 
another profane altar without, and to rebel against the peace 
of Christ and the ordination and unity of God.’ ‘ Most heresies 
and schisms take their birth,’ says he again®, ‘from this 
original, that men refuse to submit to the bishop appomted by 
God, and consider not that there ought to be but one bishop 
at once in a Church, and but one judge in the room of Christ.’ 
This he speaks particularly against those who thought to 
justify their schism by setting up an anti-bishop in opposition 
to the true one: which did not diminish the schism, but did 
heighten and augment it, and commonly render it more in- 
veterate and lasting. As it was in the case of the Meletians 
in Egypt, and the Donatists in Africa, and the Novatians at 
Rome, who all carried on their schisms more powerfully by 
the help of anti-bishops to strengthen their party and uphold 
their faction. But this was no just pretence for schism; but 
a manifest violation of the standing rule of the Catholic Church, 
which was to have but one bishop in a Church as the centre of 
unity: and to set up another in opposition to him was not to 
make another true bishop or pastor of the flock, to whom the 
people were obliged to join themselves as the minister of God ; 
but to introduce a wolf, an adulterer, a sacrilegious usurper, a 
stranger and an alien, from whom they were obliged to fly as 
from one who had no title to their obedience by any divine 
appointment or allowed rule of ordination. 

I have more than once fully demonstrated this ® out of the 
writings of Cyprian and others of the Ancients, to which it is 
here sufficient to refer the reader. I only note one thing out 
of Cyprian, which he applies particularly to the case of the 


61 Ep. 55. [4]. 59.] ad Cornel. 
p- 129. (p. 261.).... Neque enim 
aliunde hereses obortz sunt, aut 
nata sunt scandala, quam inde quod 
sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec 
unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos, 
et ad tempus judex vice Christi ro- 
gitatur. 

62. See b. 2. ch. 13..8..1.v.1. p. 156, 
See also Scholastic History of Lay- 


Baptism, part 2. ch. 2., in the ninth 
volume of this edition. 

63 Ep. 44. [al. 46.] ad Maxim. et 
Nicostrat. Confessor. (p. 232.) Gra- 
vat me ..cum vos illic comperissem 
contra ecclesiasticam dispositionem, 
contra evangelicam legem, contra 
institutionis Catholice unitatem, a- 
lium episcopum fieri consensisse, id 
est, quod nec fas est nec licet fieri, 


communion. 29 


Novatian schism, that to set up such an anti-bishop to head a 
faction was ‘to act against the settlement of the Church, the 
laws of the Gospel, and the unity of the Catholic institution : it 
was to make another Church, to tear the members of Christ, 
and disjoint that one body and soul of the Lord’s flock by a 
dividing emulation.’ And therefore he tells Maximus and 
Nicostratus, and other confessors, who were concerned in up- 
holding and abetting the Novatian schism, ‘that they were not 
asserting the Gospel of Christ, whilst they divided themselves 
from the flock of Christ, and were not in peace and concord with 
his Church.’ It is usual with him upon this account to say®’, 
‘He has not God for his father who has not the Church for 
his mother. Whoever is separated from the Church to be 
joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the 
Church: he cannot come to the rewards of Christ who leaves 
the Church of Christ: he is an alien, he is profane, he is an 
enemy :’ and ‘that martyrdom itself, which was accounted im 
many cases equivalent to baptism, would not expiate this crime, 
unless the offended party returned to the unity of the Church.’ 
‘For what peace,’ says he®°, ‘can they promise themselves who 


ecclesiam aliam constitui; Christi nec passione purgatur. Esse mar- 


membra discerpi, Dominici gregis 
animum et corpus unum discissa 
zemulatione lacerari.... Nec putetis 
sic vos evangelium Christi asserere, 
dum vosmet ipsos a Christi grege 
et ab ejus pace et concordia separa- 


tis. 

64 De Unit. Eccles. p. 109. (p. 78.) 
Quisquis, ab ecclesia segregatus, 
adulteree jungitur, a promissis ec- 
clesie separatur. Nec pervenit ad 
Christi premia, qui relinquit ec- 
clesiam Christi. Alienus est, pro- 
fanus est, hostis est. Habere jam 
non potest Deum Patrem, qui eccle- 
siam non habet matrem, &c. 

65 [bid. p. 113. (p. 81.) Quam sibi 
igitur pacem promittunt inimici 
fratrum? Que sacrificia celebrare 
se credunt emuli sacerdotum? An 
secum esse Christum, cum collecti 
fuerint, opinantur qui extra Christi 
ecclesiam colliguntur? Tales etiamsi 
occisi in confessione nominis fuerint, 
macula ista nec sanguine abluitur. 
Inexpiabilis et gravis culpa discordie 


tyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non 
est : ad regnum pervenire non po- 
terit, qui eam, que regnatura est, 
derelinquit. Pacem nobis Christus 
dedit: concordes atque unanimes 
esse preecepit : dilectionis et caritatis 
foedera incorrupta atque inviolata 
servari mandavit: exhibere se non 
potest martyrem, qui fraternam non 
tenuit caritatem. Docet hoc et con- 
testatur Paulus Apostolus, dicens, 
Et si habuero fidem, ita ut montes 
transferam, caritatem autem non ha- 
beam, nihil sum. Et si in cibos 
pauperum distribuero omnia mea, et 
si tradidero corpus meum ut ardeam, 
caritatem autem non habeam, nihil 
proficio. Caritas magnanima est, 
caritas benigna est, caritas non 
emulatur, non agit perperam, non 
inflatur, non irritatur, non cogitat 
malum. Omnia diligit, omnia credit, 
omnia sperat, omnia sustinet : caritas 
nunquam excidit. Nunquam, inquit, 
excidit caritas: hee enim semper 
in regno erit: hac in eternum fra- 


30 SVE 


Union and 


die in enmity with their brethren? What sort of sacrifices do they 
think they offer who rival the priests with emulation? Do they 
imagine Christ is with them when they are assembled, who as- 
semble out of the Church of Christ? Such men, though they 
be slain for the confession of his name, do not wash away the 
stain with their blood. The inexpiable and grievous crime of 
dissension is not purged away by their passion: he cannot be 
a martyr that is not in the Church: he cannot attain to the 
kingdom who deserts the Church, which is to have the king- 
dom. Christ commended peace to us; he commanded us to be 
unanimous and united together in concord; he enjoined us to 
keep the bonds of love and charity firm and inviolable. He 
cannot make himself a martyr that retains not brotherly 
charity. St. Paul [1 Cor. 13, 2—8.] teaches us this, and testifies 
saying, “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove 
mountains, and have not charity, 1am nothing. And though 
I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my 
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me 
nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth 
not; doth not behave itself unseemly, is not puffed up, is not 
easily provoked, thinketh no evil, loveth all things, believeth 
all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity 
never faileth :” it will always be in possession of the kingdom ; 
it will endure for ever in the unity of that fraternity which ad- 
heres together. But discord cannot attain to the kingdom of 
heaven, nor come to the reward of Christ, who said, “ This is 
my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved 
you.” He cannot appertain to Christ who violates the love of 
Christ by perfidious dissension. He that hath not love hath 


ternitatis sibi cohzrentis unitate 


durabit. Ad regnum celorum non 
potest pervenire discordia; nec pre- 
mium Christi, qui dixit, Hoe est 
mandatum meum, ut diligatis in- 
vicem, quemadmodum dilexivos. Per- 
tinere non poterit ad Christum, qui 
dilectionem Christi perfida dissen- 
sione violavit. Qui caritatem non 
habet, Deum non habet. Joannis 
beati apostoli vox est, Deus, inquit, 
dilectio est ; et qui manet in dilec- 
tione, in Deo manet, et Deus in illo 
manet. Cum Deo manere non pos- 


sunt, qui esse in ecclesia Dei unani- 
mes noluerunt; ardeant licet flammis 
et ignibus traditi, vel objecti bestiis 
animas suas ponant; non erit illa 
fidei corona, sed poena perfidiz ; nec 
religiose virtutis exitus gloriosus, 
sed desperationis interitus. [Vid. 
etiam Ep. 52. [al. 55.] ad Antonian. 
pp. 108, 114. (p. 244.) Neque enim 
possunt laudare nos, &c.—Ep. 57. 
[al. 60.] ad Cornel. p. 118. (p. 270.) 
.... Agnoscit ne jam qui sit sacerdos 
Dei? ὅς. Ep.] 


5 6. 


communion. 31 


not God. It is the voice of the blessed Apostle St. John: 
“God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, 
and God in him.” They cannot dwell with God who would 
not abide unanimously in the Church of God: though they 
burn in the flames, though they be cast into the fire, or thrown 
to wild-beasts, and so lay down their lives; that will not be the 
crown of their faith, but the punishment of their perfidious- 
ness; not the glorious exit of a religious virtue, but a death of 
desperation. Such an one may be slain, but he cannot be 
crowned,—Occidi talis potest, coronari non potest. Cyprian 
often repeats this assertion in other places of his writings, 
which for brevity’s sake I omit, and particularly applies it to 
the schism of the Novatians, who broke the unity of the Church 
by setting up Novatian their leader as anti-bishop against Cor- 


-nelius the lawful bishop of Rome; who being once regularly 


chosen and invested in his office, no other could intrude him- 
self into the same place without dividing the unity of the 
Church. Which was not the singular opinion of St. Cyprian, 
but the voice of the whole Catholic Church, as I have had 
occasion to demonstrate more fully in another discourse, to 
which I refer the reader for greater satisfaction. Neither was 
it any private opinion of Cyprian, that a schismatic continuing 
a schismatic without repentance could not be a martyr; but 
herein he is followed by the greatest lights of the Church, St. 
Chrysostom 57, St. Austin®’, Fulgentius®9, and others, who cite 


66 Scholastic History of Lay-Bapt. 
pt.2.ch.2.s.4. Seebefore, p.18.n.35. 

67 Hom. 11. in Eph. (t. 11. 
Ρ. 86 ς.) ᾿Ανήρ δέ τις ἅγιος εἶπέ τι 
δοκοῦν εἶναι τολμηρὸν, πλὴν ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως 
ἐφθέγξατο' τί δὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν; Οὐδὲ 
μαρτυρίου αἷμα ταύτην δύνασθαι ἐξα- 
λείφειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἔφησεν. 

68 Ep. 61. [4]. 204.] (t. 2. p. 765 f.) 
Jam enim nescio quoties disputando 
et scribendo monstravimus, non eos 
posse habere martyrum mortem, 
quia Christianorum non habent vi- 
tam, cum martyrem non faciat peena, 
sed caussa.— Ep. 204. [al. 173.] 
(t.2. p.614 f.) Foris autem ab ec- 
clesia constitutus, et separatus a 
communione unitatis et vinculo ca- 
ritatis, zterno supplicio punireris, 
etiamsi pro Christi nomine vivus in- 


cendereris. [ Vid. De Bapt.1. 4. c. 17. 
(t.g. p. 135 g.)—Cont. Lit. Petilian. 
1. 2, 6: 23. (ibid. Ὁ: 232 g.) Ep.] 

69. Int. Oper. Augustin. (t. 6. ap- 
pend. p. 27e.).... deo debet ad ec- 
clesiam redire, non ut sacramentum 
baptismatis iterum accipiat, quod 
nemo debet in quolibet homine bap- 
tizato repetere: sed ut in societate 
Catholica vitam zeternam accipiat, ad 
quam obtinendam nunquam potest 
esse idoneus, qui cum sacramento 
baptismatis ab ecclesia Catholica re- 
manserit alienus. Qui si eleemosy- 
nas largas faciat, et pro nomine 
Christi etiam sanguinem fundat, pro 
eo, quod in hac vita non tenuit 
ecclesize Catholic unitatem, non 
habebit zternam salutem.—C. 39. 
(ibid. p.32 b.) Firmissime tene et nul- 


32 Onion and XVI. i 


this saying of his with approbation, which shows what weight 
they laid upon this sort of unity of submission and obedience to 
every lawful bishop in the regular management of the affairs 
of his own Church. 

But we must note, that this obedience was only due to 
bishops, when they could make out a just title to it by the 
standing rules of the Catholic Church. For, first, if any man 
came into his office by a simoniacal ordination, his ordination 
by the canons7° was declared null and void: and then no obe- 
dience was due to him, nor any communion to be held with 
him, as a bishop of the Church. Secondly, if a man intruded 
himself into a full see, where another bishop was regularly 
ordained before him, it was so far from being a duty to pay 
obedience to him, that it was the very crime of schism we 
have now been speaking of in the Novatians of old, to separate 
from the true bishop by joining with an invader set up against 
him. Thirdly, if a bishop fell into manifest heresy or idolatry, 
the people were not only at liberty, but obliged in point of 
duty to separate from his communion as an intolerable preyari- 
eator and transgressor. Thus Cyprian?! tells the people of 
Leon and Astorga in Spain, with relation to Martialis and 


latenus dubites, quemlibet hzreticum 
sive schismaticum in nomine Patris 
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizatum, 
si ecclesiz Catholicee non fuerit ag- 
gregatus, quantascunque eleemosy- 
nas fecerit, et si pro Christi nomine 
etiam sanguinem fuderit, nullatenus 
posse salvari. Omni enim homini, 
qui ecclesiz Catholice non tenet 
unitatem, neque baptismus, neque 
eleemosyna quamlibet copiosa, neque 
mors pro nomine Christi suscepta 
proficere poterit ad salutem, quando 
in eo vel heretica vel schismatica 
pray itas perseverat, qué ducit ad 
mortem. 

70 Vid. C. Apost. 29. [al. 30. | (Co- 
tel. [δ᾿ 22. |, he Pp. 441.) Εἴ τις ἐπί- 
σκοπὸς διὰ χρημάτων τῆς ἀξίας ταύ- 
τῆς ἐγκρατὴς γένηται, ἢ πρεσβύτερος. 
ἢ διάκονος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς. καὶ 
ὁ χειροτονήσας, καὶ ἐκκοπτέσθω παν- 
τάπασι καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας, ὡς Σίμων ὁ 
Μάγος ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου. -Ο. Chal- 
ced. c. 2. (t. 4. p. 755 b.) Εἴ τις ἐπί- 


σκοπος ἐπὶ χρήμασι χειροτονίαν ποιή- 
POEs Kal εἰς πράσιν καταγάγῃ τὴν 
ἄπρατον χάριν, καὶ χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ 
χρήμασιν ἐπίσκοπον, ἢ χωρεπίσκοπον, 
ἢ πρεσβύτερον, ἢ ἢ διάκονον, ἢ ἕτερόν 
τινα τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ “Καταριθμου- 
μένων, ἢ προβάλλοιτο ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἢ 
οἰκονόμον, ἢ ἔκδικον, ἢ ἢ προσμονάριον, 
ἢ ὅλως τινὰ τοῦ κανόνος, δι αἰσχρο- 
κέρδειαν οἰκείαν" ὁ τοῦτο ἐπιχειρήσας, 
ἐλεγχθεὶς, περὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον κινδυνευέτω 
βαθμόν' καὶ ὁ χειροτονούμενος μηδὲν 
ἐκ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐμπορίαν ὠφελείσθω χει- 
ροτονίας ἢ προβολῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω ἀλλό- 
τριος τῆς ἀξίας, ἢ τοῦ φροντίσματος, 
μαι ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἔτυχεν. 

"Ep. 68. [al. 67.] p. 171. (p. 
288. ).... Plebs obsequens preeceptis 
Dominicis, et Deum metuens, a pec- 
catore preposito separare se debet, 
nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacri- 
ficia miscere; quando ipsa maxime 
habeat potestatem vel eligendi dig- 
nos sacerdotes, vel indignos recu- 
sandi. 


communion. 33 


Bisilides, two bishops who fell into idolatry, that it was their 
duty, in obedience to the divine commands, to separate them- 
selves from such apostatizing bishops, and not join in their 
sacrilegious sacrifices; forasmuch as it was chiefly in their 
power either to choose worthy bishops, or refuse the unworthy. 
And the same obligation lay upon them to separate from the 
communion of an heretical bishop, as is evident from the whole 
practice of the Church. Fourthly, if any bishops were legally 
deposed for any other misdemeanours, it was equally the people’s 
duty to give vigour and effect to the censures of the Church 
by deserting their communion, and adhering to such as were 
by just authority substituted in their room. Fifthly, it some- 
times happened that the dispute of right between two con- 
tending bishops was so nice and doubtful, and hard to be de- 
termined, that good and wise men might join with either till 
the matter of dispute was fully ended by a competent au- 
thority, from which there lay no further appeal. This was like 
the case of a lite pendente, where each party might be pre- 
sumed to have a right till the cause was fully heard and 
adjusted: and in such a case it would be hard to condemn 
innocent men who joined with either side till some better light 
and direction could be afforded them, which might give a final 
determination of the question in debate, and settle more per- 
fectly the rule of communion. This was the case between 
Flavian and Eyagrius, bishops of Antioch: Flavian was gene- 
rally received in the Eastern Churches, but Evagrius had the 
countenance of the bishops of Rome and the Western Churches ; 
and during this contention it was no great crime in men of 
honest minds to join with either party, since the matter was so 
hard to be determined by the greatest authority in the Church. 
Sixthly, sometimes a bishop, who might be presumed to have a 
right in the Church, was willing to resign to his opposite, to 
prevent a schism and preserve the peace of the Church ; and 
in that case there could be no harm in submitting to the 
opposite, because it was done by consent and cession of the 
true bishop, and was confirmed by the approbation of the 
Church. Seventhly, sometimes a bishop was willing to resign 
for the sake of peace, but a superior power would not permit 
him so to do: thus Flavian in the forementioned dispute with 
Evagrius, being summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. D 


34 Onion and AVIS 


have his cause heard and decided at Rome, generously told the 
Emperor, ‘ that if his faith was accused as erroneous, or his life 
as immoral and unqualifying him for a bishopric, he would 
freely let his accusers be his judges, and stand to their deter- 
mination, whatever it were: but if the dispute be only about 
the throne and government of the Church, said he, “1 shall 
not stay for judgment, nor contend with any that has a mind 
to that, but freely recede, and abdicate the throne of my own 
accord: and you, great sir, may commit the see of Antioch to 
whom you please.’ The historian7? says the Emperor was so 
much affected with this generous answer, that, instead of 
sending him to Rome for judgment, he sent him back to take 
care of his Church, and would never after hearken to any 
solicitations that were made to expel him. Now in this case it 
were unreasonable to think that the people which followed 
Flavian, among whom was St. Chrysostom, were in any fault, 
though the judgment of the Western bishops was against him. 
Lastly, sometimes two bishops were allowed to sit jomtly im the 
same see, as some suppose Peter and Paul to have been at 
Rome, the one the bishop of the Jews, and the other of the 
Gentiles ; or when one was to be coadjutor to the other: or 
when it was to cure an inveterate schism, as it was in the pro- 
posal made by the Catholic bishops to the Donatists in the 
Collation of Carthage; of all which cases the reader may find 
an exact account given in a former part7® of this work. Now 
in such cases obedience might be paid to either bishop without 
schism, because there was no opposition between them: and, 
though it was not according to the common rule of the Church 
to have two bishops ordinarily sitting together in one see at 
the same time, yet for extraordinary reasons this was some- 
times allowed in special cases; then there was no schism or 
other evil in it, no breach of unity or encroachment upon any 


72 Theodoret. l. 5. c. 23. (ν. 3. 

Pp. 225. 19.) Ei μὲν τῆς πίστεως, ὦ 
βασθ οι τῆς ἐμῆς ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῆς κατη- 
γοροῦσί τινες, ἢ τὸν βίον φασὶν ἱ ἱερω- 
σύνης ἀνάξιον, καὶ αὐτοῖς χρήσομαι 
τοῖς κατηγόροις κριταῖς, καὶ τὴν παρ᾽ 
ἐκείνων ἐκφερομένην. ψῆφον δέξομαι. 
Εἰ δὲ περὶ θρόνου καὶ προεδρίας ζυγο- 
μαχοῦσιν, οὔτε δικάσομαι' οὔτε τοῖς 
λαβεῖν βουλομένοις ἀντιμαχέσομαι᾽ 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐκστήσομαι καὶ τῆς προεδρίας 
ἀφέξομαι. Τοιγάρτοι δὸς ᾧ βούλει 
τὸν ᾿Αντιοχέων θρόνον, ra) βασιλεῦ. 
Ταύτην αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν καὶ τὴν 
σοφίαν θαυμάσας ὁ βασιλεὺς τὴν ἐν- 
εγκοῦσαν καταλαβεῖν καὶ τὴν ἐγχειρι- 
σθεῖσαν ποιμαίνειν ἐκκλησίαν ἐκέ- 
λευσε. 
78 B. 2. ch. 19. ΟΣ. Ps eee 


communion. 35 


man’s right, because it was done for expedience and benefit of 
the community, by common consent of all parties, and the 
general approbation of the Church. 

I have interposed these cautions, that it might be more par- 
ticularly understood wherein the due submission to every 
bishop in his own Church consisted, and under what limitations 
obedience was required to a single bishop, regularly appointed, 
to preserve the unity of the Church. 

7. To preserve the unity of the Church in its well-being, it ieee S 
was required that every member of a Church should submit to o¢ sub. ᾿ 
the ordinary rules of discipline appointed for the punishment Mission fo 
of delinquents; and neither despise the lawful censures of his οὔτις ie 
own Church, nor seek clandestinely to be restored to commu- Cons 

-nion in any other Church, without giving satisfaction to his 
own Church, whereof he was a member, nor betaking himself 
to the conventicles of heretics or schismatics, to be received by 
them as a communicant, when he was cast out of his own 
Church as a criminal. For all these were direct violations of 
the unity of discipline, which ought to be preserved entire in 
every Church. The effect of a legal excommunication and the 
power of the keys was always reputed such, as that if a man 
was justly cast out of the communion of his own Church for his 
offences, he was supposed to be excluded from all title to the 
kingdom of heaven during his continuance in that state, by 
virtue of our Saviour’s authority delegated to the Church in 
those words, “" Whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” 
[John 20, 23.] and “ Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven.” [Matth.18,1g9.] And therefore unless men 
submitted to the ordinary way of restoring offenders, and sought 
to be reconciled to the peace of the Church by the proper 
methods of public confession and repentance, and intercession 
for pardon and absolution, they were treated as despisers of the 
Church’s discipline ; and if they died in that state, without being 
first reconciled, and received into communion again, they were 
looked upon as persons in a deplorable condition, as dying in 
a state of sin and rebellion against God, and out of the unity of 
the Church. For which reason no solemnity was ever used at 
their funeral, as was usual for those who died in the peace of 
the Church ; nor were their oblations received, or any offerings 
or commemorations made for them, as for others, in the usual 

D2 


36 XVI. i. 


Union and 


service of the Church. Only in one case a little favour was 
showed to such as died in the bonds of excommunication, unre- 
laxed by any formal absolution: which was, when such peni- 
tents as obediently submitted to the Church’s discipline, and 
gave evident tokens of their sincere repentance, happened to 
die suddenly when they were desirous of reconciliation and 
absolution, but by unavoidable necessity could not have it; in 
this case the canons ordered that their oblations should be 
received, as a testimony of their submission, and [of their} 
being united in heart and mind to the Church, though they 
could not have the formality of an external absolution. 

In the fourth Council of Carthage there is a canon 7! to this 
purpose : ‘Such penitents as are intent and diligent in ob- 
serving the rules of penance, if they chance to die in a journey, 
or at sea, where they can have no help or remedy, shall not- 
withstanding have their memory commended both in the 
prayers and oblations of the Church.’ The second Council of 
Vaison7> is a little more particular in declaring, how such 
penitents shall be admitted to all the privileges of Church 
communion after death: ‘If any of those who are under 
penance, and live in the course of a good life with satisfactory 
compunction, happen to die suddenly and unexpectedly either 
in the country or in a journey, their oblations shall be received, 
and their funeral obsequies and memorials shall be celebrated 
in the usual manner and [with the] affection of the Church: 
because it were unjust that their commemorations should be ex- 
cluded from the salutary mysteries, who, whilst they were la- 
bouring earnestly with a faithful affection after those holy myste- 
ries, were intercepted by sudden death from the viatiewm of the 
sacraments, to whom the priest perhaps would have thought fit 


74 C, 49. (t. 2. p. 1206 b.) Poeni- 
tentes, qui attente leges poenitentie 
exequuntur, si casu in itinere vel in 
mari mortui fuerint, ubi eis subve- 
niri non possit, memoria eorum et 
orationibus et oblationibus com- 
mendetur. 

75 C. 2. (Ὁ. 3. ἢ. 1457 δ.) Pro his, 
qui, peenitentia accepta, in bone vite 
cursu satisfactoria compunctione vi- 
ventes, sine communione inopinato 
nonnunquam transitu in agris aut 
itineribus preeveniuntur, oblationem 


recipiendam, et eorum funera, ac de- 
inceps memoriam ecclesiastico af- 
fectu prosequendam ; quia nefas est 
eorum commemorationes excludi a 
salutaribus sacris, qui ad eadem_sa- 
cra fideli affectu contendentes, dum 
se diutius reos statuunt, indignos 
salutiferis mysteriis judicant, ac dum 
purgatiores restitui desiderant, abs- 
que secramentorum viatico inter- 
cipiuntur : quibus fortasse nec ab- 
solutissimam reconciliationem sacer- 
dos denegandam putasset. 


communion. 37 


§ 7. 8. 


to have granted the most absolute reconciliation.’ There are 
a great many canons in the second Council of Arles 76, and the 
second of Orleans?7, and the second [third] of Toledo 75, and 
the Council of Epone 79, to the same person. By all which we 
may judge, that though the Church was severe against im- 
penitent apostates and contemners of her discipline, yet she 
showed great favour and tenderness toward such as really 
honoured her discipline, and gave evident tokens of repentance: 
such men were not deemed to depart out of the unity and 
communion of the Church, though they happened to die 
without the formality of an external absolution; being internally 
reconciled both to God and the Church, by the testimonies of 
repentance, in such cases of extremity, where not their own 

_will, but the necessity of their circumstances precluded them 
from a more formal reconciliation. 

8. And thus far we have considered the unity of every How dif- 
Church with relation to its own members: we are next to ἘΠ 
examine, what communion different Churches held with one maintained 
another, that we may discover the harmonious unity of the eee 
Catholic Church. And here first of all we are to observe, that another. 
as there was one common faith, consisting of certain funda- aa 
mental articles, essential to the very being of a particular 
Church and its unity, and the being of a Christian; so this 
same faith was necessary to unite the different parts of the 
Catholic Church, and make them one body of Christians. So 
that if any Church deserted or destroyed this faith in whole or 
im part, they were looked upon as rebels and traitors against 
Christ, and enemies to the common faith, and treated as a 


eC. 12. {t. 4. p. 012 ἃ.) De 
his, qui in peenitentia positi vita ex- 
cesserunt, placuit nullum commu- 
nione vacuum debere dimitti; sed 
pro eo, quod honoravit peenitentiam, 
oblatio illius suscipiatur. 

77 Ὁ. 14. Ed. Crabb. (ibid. [c. 
15-] p. 1782 a.) Oblationes [al. ob- 
lationem] defunctorum, qui in ali- 
quo crimine fuerint interempti, re- 
cipi debere censemus, si tamen non 
ipsi sibi mortem probentur propriis 
manibus intulisse. 

78 Ὁ, 12. (t.5. p. 1012 a.) Qui- 
cunque ab episcopo vel presbytero, 
sanus vel infirmus, peenitentiam pos- 
tulat, id ante omnia episcopus servet 


et presbyter, ut si vir est, sive sanus, 
sive infirmus, prius eum tondeat, 
aut in cinere et cilicio habitum mu- 
tare faciat, et sic peenitentiam οἱ tra- 
dat. Si vero mulier fuerit, &c. 

79 ΟἹ 36. (t. 4. p. 1580 e.) Ne 
ullus sine remedio aut spe veniz ab 
ecclesia repellatur, neve ulli, si aut 
peenituerit, aut se correxerit, ad ve- 
niam redeundi aditus obstruatur. 
Sed si cui forsitan discrimen mortis 
immineat, damnationis constituta 
tempora relaxentur. Quod si egro- 
tum accepto viatico revalescere for- 
tasse contingit, statuti temporis spa- 
tia observare conveniet. 


38 Union and XVie1. 


conventicle of heretics, and not of Christians. Upon this 
account every bishop not only made a declaration of his faith 
at his ordination, befere the provincial synod that ordained 
him, but also sent his circular or encyelical letters, as they 
were called, to foreign Churches, to signify that he was in 
communion with them. And this was so necessary a thing in 
a bishop newly ordained, that Liberatus °° tells us, the omission 
of it was interpreted a sort of refusal to hold communion with 
the rest of the world, and a virtual charge of heresy upon 
himself or them. 


Secondly, 9. To maintain this unity of faith entire, every Church was 
Tn mutual : - ΗΝ : 

assistance Teady to give each other then mutual assistance, to oppose all 
of ΤῈΝ fundamental errors, and beat down heresy at its first appear- 
t : : 

Bee cee og ance among them. The whole world in this respect was but 
aoe com, One common diocese, the episcopate was an universal thing, and 
mon faith. 


every bishop had his share in it in such a manner, as to have 
an equal concern in the whole; as I have more fully shown in 
another place 51, where I observed, that in things not apper- 
taining to the faith, bishops were not to meddle with other 
men’s dioceses, but only to mind the business of their own : 
but when the faith or welfare of the Church lay at stake, and 
religion was manifestly invaded; then, by this rule of there 
being but one episcopacy, every other bishopric was as much 
their diocese as their own; and no human laws or canons could 
tie up their hands from performing such acts of the episcopal 
office in any part of the world, as they thought necessary for 
the preservation of faith and religion. This was the ground 
of their meeting in synods, provincial, national, and general, 
and sending their joint opinions and advice from one Church 
to another. The greatest part of Church-history is made up 
of such acts as these, so that it were next to impertinent to 
refer to any particulars. 


8 Breviar. Ὁ; 17. (CC. t..5. p. 
765 6. et p. 766 a, c, d.) Ordinatur 
a communicatoribus ejus episcopis 
et clericis et monachis, qui ejus no- 
verant fidem et gubernationem, 
Joannes ex ceconomo, cognomento 
Talaia....Joannes- Talaia de ordi- 
natione sua neglexit per suas syno- 
dicas literas Acacio, episcopo Con- 
stantinopolitano, destinare. . . . Post- 
hee Acacius audiens de ordinatione 


Joannis, et contristatus, quia syno- 
dicas epistolas non direxisset, et una 
faciens cum Gennadio episcopo, pa- 
rente beati Timothei, volentes ei no- 
cere, &c. .. Nec tamen prius hoc fa- 
ceret, nisi susciperet henoticon prin- 
cipis, et synodicas destinaret episto- 
las Constantinopolitano Acacio, et 
Simplicio Romano, et ceteris archi- 
episcopis, &c. 
81 B. 2. ch. 5. 8. 2. Vv. I. p. 96. 


§ 9, 10. communion. 39 


I only observe one thing further upon this head, that the 
intermeddling with other men’s concerns, which would have 
been accounted a real breach of unity in many other cases, 
was in this case thought so necessary, that there was no certain 
way to preserve the unity of the Catholic Church and faith 
without it. And as an instance of this, I have noted in the 
fore-cited Book, that though it was against the ordinary rule 
of the Church for any bishop to ordain in another man’s 
diocese ; yet in case a bishop turned heretic, and persecuted 
the orthodox, and would ordain none but heretical men to 
establish heresy in his diocese; in that case any orthodox 
bishop was not only authorized, but obliged, as opportunity 
served, and the needs of the Church required, to ordain 

Catholic teachers in such a diocese, to oppose the malignant 
designs of the enemy, and stop the growth of heresy, which 
might otherwise take deep root, and spread and over-run the 
Chureh. Thus Athanasius and the famous Eusebius of Samo- 
sata went about the world in the prevalency of the Arian 
heresy, ordaining in every Church, where they came, such 
clergy as were necessary to support the orthodox cause in such 
a time of distress and desolation: and this was so far from 
being reckoned a breach of the Church’s unity, though against 
the letter of a canon in ordinary cases, that it was necessary to 
be done in such a state of affairs, to maintain the unity of the 
Catholic faith, which every bishop was obliged to defend, not 
only in his own diocese, but in all parts of the world, by virtue 
of that rule, which obliges bishops in weighty affairs to take 
care of the Catholic Church, and requires all Churches in time 
of danger to give mutual aid and assistance to one another. 

10. This unity of the Catholic Church was further main- Thirdly, In 
tained by the readiness of each Church, and every member of joing i 


: paz 3 i commuion 
it, to jo in communion with all other Churches in the per- with each 
a . > : other in 
formance of divine worship, and all holy offices, as their 4) poly 
occasions required. To this purpose two things were necessary ; Offices, as 
hie occasion 
first, that every Church should keep her liturgy free from all required. 
superstitious and idolatrous worship, and not render her as- 
semblies for holy duties inaccessible by intrenching upon any 
divine rule, or making any unlawful conditions of communion. 
And how careful the ancient Church was in this point, may be 


seen by any one that will peruse the account I have lately 


40 Union and SL i 


given 51 of the liturgy of the ancient Churches in all the several 
parts of it; where none of those superstitious and idolatrous 
practices appear, that have so much divided the Church in later 
ages, since the exorbitant power of the Romish Church im- 
posed so much upon the credulity of men in points of faith, 
and loaded their consciences so heavily in matters of unwar- 
rantable practice. Secondly, it was necessary that every 
Christian, when he came to a foreign Church, should readily 
comply with the innocent usages and customs of that Church, 
where he happened to be, though they might chance in some 
circumstances to differ from his own. This was a necessary 
rule of peace, to preserve the unity of communion and worship 
throughout the whole Catholic Church. For it was impossible 
that every Church should have the same rites and ceremonies, 
the same customs and usages in all respects, or even the same 
method and manner of worship exactly agreeing in all pune- 
tilios with one another, unless there had been a general liturgy 
for the whole Church expressly enjoined by divine appoint- 
ment. The unity of the Catholic Church did not require this, 
as we shall see more plainly by and by, and therefore no one 
ever insisted upon this as any necessary part of its unity: it 
was enough that all Churches agreed in the substance of divine 
worship ; and for circumstantials, such as rites and ceremonies, 
method and order, and the like, every Church had hberty to 
judge and choose for herself by the rules of expediency and 
convenience : and then, as it was the duty of every member of 
any particular Church to comply with the innocent customs of 
his own Church, in order to hold free communion with her; so 
it was the duty of every Christian to comply with the different 
customs of all other Churches wherever he happened to travel, 
in order to hold communion with the Catholic Chureh in all 
places without exception. 

This rule is often inculeated by St. Austin as the great rule 
of peace and unity with regard to all Churches: and he tells 
us he received it as an oracle from the wise and moderate dis- 
courses of St. Ambrose, whom he consulted upon the occasion 
of a scruple which had possessed the heart of his mother Mo- 


δὲ [See Books 14 and 15, forming The seventh volume, containing this 
the sixth volume of the original edi- Book, came out in the following 
tion, and first published in 1719. year, 1720. Ep.] 


§ ΤΟ, 


communion. 41 


nicha, and for some time greatly perplexed her. She having 
lived a long time at Rome, was used to fast on Saturday, or the 
Sabbath, according to the custom of the Church of Rome: but 
when she came to Milan, she found the contrary custom pre- 
vailing, which was to keep Saturday a festival: and being 
much disturbed about this, her son, though he had not much 
concern about such matters at that time, for her ease and satis- 
faction consulted St. Ambrose upon the point, to take his ad- 
vice and direction how to govern herself in this case, so as to 
be inoffensive in her practice. To whom St. Ambrose answered, 
that he could give no better advice in the case than to do as 
he himself was wont to do: ‘ For,’ said he‘?, ‘ when I am here, 
I do not fast on the Sabbath; when I am at Rome, I fast on 
the Sabbath: and so you, whatever Church you come to, ob- 
serve the custom of that Church, if you would neither take 
offence at them, nor give offence to them.’ St. Austin *® says 
this answer satisfied his mother, and he always looked upon it 
as an oracle sent from heaven. He adds moreover, ‘ that he 
had often experienced with grief and sorrow the disturbance 
of weak minds, occasioned either by the contentious obstinacy 
of certain brethren, or by their own superstitious fears, who in 
matters of this nature, which can neither be certainly deter- 
mined by the authority of holy Scripture, nor by the tradition 
of the universal Church, nor by any advantage in the correc- 
tion of life, raise such litigious questions, as to think nothing 
right but what themselves do; only because they were used to 
do so in their own country, or because a little shallow reason 
tells them it ought to be so, or because they have perhaps seen 
some such thing in their travels, which they reckon the more 
learned the more remote it is from their own country.’ 


82 Ep.86. [al. 36.] ad Casulan. See 
before, s.5, the last clauses of n. 55. 
p. 25, Quando hic sum, &c. 

83 Ep. 118. [4]. 54. c. 2.] ad Ja- 
nuar. (t. 2. p. 124 f.) Hoc cum ma- 
tri renuntiassem, libenter amplexa 
est. Ego vero de hac sententia 
etiam atque etiam cogitans, ita sem- 
per habui, tanquam eam ceelesti 
oraculo susceperim. Sensi enim 
sepe dolens et gemens multas in- 
firmorum perturbationes fieri, per 
quorundam fratrum contentiosain 
obstinationem, vel superstitiosam ti- 


miditatem, qui in rebus hujusmodi, 
que neque Scripture sanctze aucto- 
ritate, neque universalis ecclesiz tra- 
ditione, neque vite corrigende uti- 
litate ad certum possunt terminum 
pervenire, tantum quia subest qua- 
liscunque ratiocinatio cogitantis, aut 
quia in sua patria sic ipse consuevit, 
aut quia ibi vidit, ubi peregrinatio- 
nem suam, quo remotiorem a suis, 
eo doctiorem factam putat, tam li- 
tigiosas excitant quzestiones, ut nisi 
quod ipsi faciunt, nihil rectum ex- 
istiment. 


42 XVL. 1. 


Union and 


Thus he handsomely and elegantly reflects upon the super- 
stitious folly and contentious obstinacy of such as disturbed the 
Church’s peace for such things as every Church had liberty to 
use, and every good Christian was obliged to comply with. 
For, as he says in the same place 55, ‘all such customs as varied 
in the practice of different Churches, as that some fasted on 
the Saturday, and others did not; some received the eucharist 
every day, others on the Sabbath and Lord’s-day, and others 
on the Lord’s-day only ; and whatever else there was of this 
kind, they were all things of free observation: and in such 
things there could be no better rule for a grave and prudent 
Christian to walk by, than to do as the Church did, wherever 
he happened to come. For whatever was enjoined that was 
neither against faith nor good manners, was to be held indiffer- 
ent, and to be observed according to the custom and for the 
convenience of the society among whom we live.’ This he re- 
peats over and over again 55, as the most safe rule of practice 
in all such things wherein the custom of Churches varied, ‘ that 
wherever we see any things appointed or know them to be ap- 
pointed, that are neither against faith nor good manners, and 
have any tendency to edification and to stir men up to a good 
life, we should not only abstain from finding fault with them, 
but follow them both by our commendation and imitation.’ By 
this rule all wise and peaceable men always governed their 
practice in holding communion with other Churches: though 
they did not altogether like their customs, they did not break 
communion with them upon that account. 


84 Ibid. (p. 124 c.) Alia vero, que 
per loca terrarum regionesque vari- 
antur, sicuti est quod alii jejunant 
Sabbato, alii non: alii quotidie com- 
municant corpori et sanguini Do- 
mini, alii certis diebus accipiunt : 
alibi nullus dies pretermittitur, quo 
non offeratur, alibi Sabbato tantum 
et Dominico, alibi tantum Dominico: 
et si quid aliud hujusmodi animad- 
verti potest, totum hoc genus rerum 
liberas habet observationes: nec dis- 
ciplina ulla est in his melior, gravi 
prudentique Christiano, quam ut eo 
modo agat, quo agere viderit eccle- 
siam ad quamcunque forte devene- 
rit. Quod enim neque contra fidem 
neque contra bonos mores injungi- 


tur [al. esse convincitur }, indifferen- 
ter est habendum, et pro eorum 
inter quos vivitur societate servan- 
dum est. 

85 Ibid. c. 18. (p. 141 g.).... De 
iis, que varie per diversa loca ob- 
servantur, una in his saluberrima 
regula retinenda est, ut que non 
sunt contra fidem, neque contra bo- 
nos mores, et habent aliquid ad ex- 
hortationem vite melioris, ubicun- 
que institui videmus, vel instituta 
cognoscimus, non solum non im- 
probemus, sed etiam laudando et 
imitando sectemur, si aliquorum in- 
firmitas non ita impedit, ut majus 
detrimentum sit. 


δ 10. 


communion. 


43 


Thus Irenzus 56. observes to Pope Victor, when he was 
rashly going to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches for their 
different way of observing Easter, that his predecessor Anice- 
tus was far from this uncharitable temper. For when Polycarp 
came to Rome, though they could not come to a perfect agree- 
ment in this point, to have all the Churches observe Easter on 
the same day; yet this difference made no contention between 
them. For they gave each other the kiss of peace, and com- 
municated together; Anicetus paying Polycarp the customary 
civility and respect, to let him consecrate the eucharist in his 
Church. Irenzus observes further, that though there were 
many disputes then on foot concerning the time, and length, 
and manner of observing the ante-Paschal or Lent-fast, yet all 
Churches agreed to live in peace and union with one another: 


and the difference of their fasts served only to commend the 


unity of their faith. And because it was then a customary 
thing for Churches of different countries to send the eucharist 
mutually to each other, to testify that they were in communion 
with one another; he notes it likewise as a peculiar instance of 
the Catholic tempers of the bishops of Rome, Anicetus, Pius, 
Hyginus, Telesphorus, Xystus, and Soter, who were Victor’s 
predecessors in that Church, that though they differed from 
the Asiatic Churches about Easter, yet they lived in peace 
with them; not only receiving the members of those Churches 
into communion when they came to Rome, but also sending 
the eucharist from Rome to those Churches. Which being so 
common a way of testifying their communion with distant 
Churches in those days, it was a very just complaint which 
Chrysostom 57 made against Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, 
and his accomplices, ‘ that when they came to Constantinople, 


‘ a” , ‘ > 
τὸν ἄνωθεν κρατήσαντα θεσμὸν, οὐκ 


86 Ap. Euseb. ]. 5. c. 24. (v. 1 


Pp. 245. 3.) “Emi τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς 
ἐν πα προεστὼς Βίκτωρ, κ.τ.λ. 
87 Ep. ad Innocent. t. 4. p. 677. 
(t. 3. p. 516 a.) Ὁ yap τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
τῆς ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ τὴν προεδρίαν 
ey εἰρισθεὶς Θεόφιλος, .. συναγαγὼν 
με ἑαυτοῦ πλῆθος Αἰγυπτίων ἐπι- 
σκόπων οὐκ ὀλίγων, παραγίνεται". 
εἶτα τῆς μεγάλης καὶ θεοφιλοῦς. Κων- 
σταντινουπόλεως ἐπιβὰς, οὐκ εἰς ἐκ- 
κλησίαν εἰσῆλθε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς, καὶ 


ἡμῖν συνεγένετο, οὐ λόγου μετέδωκεν, 
οὐκ εὐχῆς, οὐ κοινωνίας" ἀλλ᾽ ἀποβὰς 
τοῦ πλοίου, καὶ τὰ πρόθυρα τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας παραδραμὼν, ἔξω που τῆς 
πόλεως ἀπελθὼν ηὐλίζετο, καὶ πολλὰ 
παρακαλεσάντων ἡμῶν καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ 
τοὺς πρὸ [Bened. μετ᾽) αὐτοῦ παρα- 
γενομένους παρ᾽ ἡμῖν καταχθῆναι" καὶ 
γὰρ ἅπαντα ηὐτρέπιστο, καὶ καταγώ- 
για, καὶ ὅσα εἰκὸς iv’ οὔτε ἐκεῖνοι, 
οὔτε αὐτὸς ἠνέσχετο. 


44. Union and XVI. i 


they came not to church, according to custom and ancient law ; 
they joined not themselves to him, nor communicated with him 
in the word or prayer, or the communion of the eucharist ; but 
as soon as they landed, passing by the church, they took their 
lodging in an inn, when the bishop’s house was ready prepared 
to entertain them.’ This he complains of as a singular instance 
of their enmity, faction, and uncharitable spirit, in refusing to 
communicate with him before any formal accusation had been 
brought against him, much less any legal sentence of condem- 
nation pronounced upon him. 
By this account of things it is easy to judge what stress the 
Ancients laid upon the law of communion, obliging every 
Church to communicate with her sister Churches over all the 
world in all holy offices, in order to preserve the communion of 
worship one entire thing throughout the whole Catholic Church, 
without any notorious division or distraction. 
Fourthly, 11. The communion of the whole Catholic Church was fur- 
in mutual ther declared by the obligation of such laws as laid a neces- 
ratify all sary injunction upon all Churches to ratify all such legal acts 
legal acts of cue : ἢ 
discipline, Of discipline, as were regularly exercised in any Church what- 
Ὁ αν τῳ Soever. Thus if any person was duly baptized, and thereby 
any Church admitted to be a member of any particular Church, that quali- 
whatsoever. feation gave him a right to communicate in any part of the 
Catholic Church, travelling with commendatory letters from 
the bishop of his own Church, to signify that he was in perfect 
and full communion with her, and not cast out for any offence 
against the rules of her communion. This is what Optatus 
means, when 55. he says, ‘ that the whole world was united 
together in one common society, or society of communion, by 
the mutual commerce of those canonical or communicatory 
letters,’ which they called formate, because these testifying 
that he was in the communion of his own Church, by the 
known laws and rules of discipline, gave him a title to com- 
municate in any Church whatsoever, only observing the rites 
and customs of that Church whither his occasions happened to 
call him. So again, if a man was legally excommunicated for 
his erimes by his own Church, no Church would receive him to 
communion till he had given proper satisfaction to his own 


#8 L. 2. p. 48. (p. 36.).... Totus orbis commercio formatarum in una 
communionis societate concordat. 


12. communion. 45 


$11, 


Church, which had bound him by her censures. Such a per- 
fect good understanding and harmony was there then among 
all the parts of the whole Catholic Church, in confirming each 
other’s discipline, and mutually strengthening their authority 
against all enemies of faith and virtue; whether they were 
such as tried by open violence and terror, or by secret arts 
and clandestine practices to get admission, in opposition to the 
Church, whose censures they lay under. No Church would 
admit them without communicatory letters: if they were rebels 
to their own Church, they were accounted rebels to the whole. 
Thus Epiphanius 89 tells us, when Marcion the heretic was ex- 
communicated by his own father, and desired to be received 
into communion at Rome, they answered him, ‘ that they could 
not do it without the permission of his father: for there was 
but one faith, and one rule of concord; and they could not do 
any thing in opposition to their good fellow-servant, and his 
father.’ This repulse was highly resented by Marcion, and it 
put him upon those wicked designs of inventing a new heresy 
to disturb the Church : for he told them directly in revenge, 
‘that he would divide their Church, and bring an eternal 
schism into it.’ Which, as Epiphanius rightly observes, ‘ was 
not so much to divide the Church, as to divide himself from it.’ 

There are a great many other instances of the Church’s 
steadiness and resolution in thus proceeding against delin- 
quents, to maintain the unity of discipline entire in all parts 
of the ecclesiastical body, and abundance of canons to this 
purpose; which, because I shall have occasion to speak more 
of hereafter 9°, I willingly omit them in this place, and go on to 
observe another instance of the Church’s unity in point of prac- 
tice: which was, 

12. That all Churches generally agreed in receiving such Fifthly, In 


. ᾿ ᾿ Ξ receiving 
eustoms as were handed down by ἜΡΡΕ δ’ consent from aposto- πμπδπίπιοαβ. 


89 Heer. 42. Marcion. ee (t. is 
Ρ. 303 6.) Τί μὴ ἠθελήσατέ με ὑπο- 
δέξασθαι ; τῶν δὲ “λεγόντων, Ore οὐ 
δυνάμεθα ἄνευ τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦ 
τιμίου πατρός σου τοῦτο ποιῆσαι" μία 
γάρ ἐστιν ἡ πίστις, καὶ μία ἡ ὁμόνοια, 
καὶ οὐ δυνάμεθα ἐναντιωθῆναι τῷ καλῷ 
συλλειτουργῷ, πατρὶ δὲ σῷ. Ζηλώσας 
λοιπὸν, καὶ εἰς μέγαν ἀρθεὶς θυμὸν καὶ 


ὑπερηφανίαν, τὸ σχίσμα ἐργάζεται ὁ 
τοιοῦτος, ἑαυτῷ τὴν αἵρεσιν προστη- 
σάμενος, καὶ εἰπὼν, Ὅτι ἐγὼ σχίσω 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὑ ὑμῶν, καὶ Bare σχίσμα 
ἐν αὐτῇ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" ὡς τἀληθῆ μὲν 
σχίσμα ἔβαλεν οὐ μικρὸν, οὐ τὴν ἐκ- 
κλησίαν σχίσας, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς 
αὐτῷ πεισθέντας. 


90 Ch, 2, 5. 10, of this Book. 


46 Union and EVE i 


ly the cus- lical tradition, or otherwise settled and determined by the de- 
ae crees of general Councils. For these two ways many customs 
Church, became in a manner universal, and almost of necessary ob- 
aitiar to servance in the Church over all the world: and then for any 
the decrees private man or Church to dispute against them, was to give 
of General : 5 2 
Councils. scandal to the rest of the world, and bring disturbance into 
the Church by an unnecessary and unreasonable opposition to 
things innocent in themselves, and settled by general consent 
and approbation. St. Austin takes notice of this double source 
and original of general customs in the Church, for which 
though there be no express command in Scripture, yet a 
great deference ought to be paid to the general sentiments 
and authority, and practice and observation of the whole 
Church. ‘ Those things,’ says Π691, ‘ which we keep, not 
from Scripture, but from tradition, and which are ob- 
served all over the world, are reasonably supposed to have 
come down to us recommended and appointed either by the 
Apostles themselves, or by some plenary Councils, whose 
authority is of great use in the Church; such as the cele- 
brating the anniversary memorial of our Saviour’s passion, and 
resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Ghost 
from heaven, and whatever else of the like nature is observed 
by the universal Church in all parts, wherever it spreads itself 
all the world over.’ Concerning which sort of things, he con- 
cludes °, ‘that for any man to dispute against them was most 
insolent madness, seeing they were authorized by the practice 
of the universal Church.’ He particularly applies this rule to 
the case of observing the Lord’s-day 93, not as a fast, but as 
a festival: for since the whole Church observed it as a festival, 
no one could turn that day into a fast, without offending God, 
by giving scandal to the Church universal : there being both 


91 Ep. 118. [al. 54.] ad Januar. 
(t. 2. p. 124 b.) Illa autem, que non 
scripta, sed tradita custodimus, que 
quidem toto terrarum orbe servan- 
tur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apo- 
stolis, vel plenariis Conciliis, quo- 
rum in ecclesia saluberrima aucto- 
ritas, commendata atque statuta re- 
tineri: sicuti quod Domini passio 
et resurrectio et ascensio in celum, 
et adventus de ccelo Spiritus Sancti, 


anniversaria solemnitate celebrantur, 
et si quid aliud tale occurrerit, quod 
servatur ab universa, quacunque se 
diffundit, ecclesia. 

52 Tbid. (p. 126 c.) Si quid horum 
tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia, 
Iasi quin ita faciendum sit, dis- 
putare, insolentissime insaniz est. 

% Ep. 86. [al. 36.] c. 7. ad Casu- 
lan. See before, the second part of 
n. 53, preceding. 


AT 


communion, 


§ 12, 13. 


general custom and canon against it. For the same reason 
it was esteemed a crime to pray kneeling on that day, because 
the practice of the universal Church was to pray standing 95, 
in memory of our Saviour’s resurrection; and the Council of 
Nice thought it a thing worthy of a decree to bring all men to 
an uniformity in that practice. As she did also in the matter 
of observing the Easter festival, making a rule that all Churches 
should celebrate it on one and the same day, ‘ because it was 
unlawful that in a business of so great moment, and the reli- 
gious observation of such a festival, there should be any dis- 
sension,’ as Constantine expresses it in his Epistle 9°, which he 
sent to all the Churches in the world upon this occasion. So 
that though several Churches had kept this festival on different 
days before this decree was made, yet when it was once passed, 
there was no more liberty for dissension. 

13. The like may be observed of the decrees of national Sixthly, In 
Councils, when once the Roman empire was divided into pier tiie is 
several kingdoms. A great many things were at first allowed ee 
to every bishop in the management of his own diocese, which Councils. 
were afterwards restrained by the decrees of national Councils. 

As to instance only one particular; every bishop anciently 
had liberty to frame his own liturgy for the use of his own 
Church: but in process of time, when the world was divided 
into several kingdoms, rules were made that all the Churches 
of such or such a kingdom should have one and the same 
liturgy. Thus when Spain and Gallia Narbonensis became one 


94 Ὁ, Apost. 64. [al. 66. et juxt. 


9% Vid. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. 
Labb. 65. (Cotel. [c. 56.] v. 1. p. 


(p. 102 a.) Die Dominico jejunium 


440.) Ei τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθῇ τὴν 
Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν ἢ τὸ Σάββατον, πλὴν 
τοῦ ἑνὸς μόνου, νηστεύων, καθαιρεί- 
Oa" ἐὰν δὲ λαϊκὸς ἢ, ἀφοριζέσθω.---- 
C. Gangrens. c. 18. (t. 2. p. 424 b.) 
Εἴ τις διὰ νομιζομένην ἄσκησιν ἐν τῇ 
Κυριακῇ νηστεύοι, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω ---- 
C. Carth. 4. c. 64. (ibid. p. 1205 b.) 
Qui Dominico die studiose jejunat, 
non credatur Catholicus.—C, Bra- 
car. 1. fal. 2.] c.4. (t.5. p. 837 e.) 
Si quis natalem Christi secundum 
carnem non bene honorat, sed ho- 
norare se simulat, jejunans in eodem 
die et in Dominico ..... anathema 
sit. 


nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis ado- 
rare.—C. Niczn. c. 20. (t. 2. p. 245 
c.) ᾿Ἐπειδὴ εἰσί τινες ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ 
γόνυ κλίνοντες, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῆς Πεντη- 
κοστῆς ἡμέραις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ὁμοι- 
ῶς ἐν πάσῃ παροικίᾳ ὁμοφρόνως φυ- 
λάττεσθαι, ἑστῶτας ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδόναι τῷ 
Κυρίῳ [4]. Θεῷ]. 

% Ap. Euseb. de Vit. Constant. 
1. 3. c. 18. (v.1. p. 588. 8.) Ipods 
τούτοις κἀκεῖνο πάρεστι συνορᾷν, ws 
ἐν τηλικούτῳ πράγματι καὶ τοιαύτῃ 
θρησκείας ἑορτῇ διαφωνίαν ἄρχειν 
ἐστὶν ἀθέμιτον. 


48 Union and VI i 


distinct kingdom, a decree was made, that as there was but 
one faith, so there should be but one liturgy, or order of divine 
service, throughout the whole kingdom. The fourth Council 
of Toledo, under the reign of king Sisenandus, made an 
express canon 97 to this purpose: ‘ After the confession of the 
true faith, which is preached in the holy Church of God, it 
seemed good that all we bishops, who are joined together in 
the unity of the Catholic faith, should henceforth use no diver- 
sity or disagreement in the administration of the ecclesiastical 
mysteries; lest every such diversity be interpreted a schism 
among us by carnal men, and such as are unknown to us, and the 
variety of customs in our Churches become a scandal to many. 
Let one order therefore of prayers and psalmody be observed 
by us throughout all Spain and Gaul; one manner of cele- 
brating mass, or the communion-service; and one manner of 
performing vespers, or evening-service: and let there hence- 
forth be no diversity in our ecclesiastical customs, seeing we all 
live in one faith and in one kingdom.’ That canon also refers 
to more ancient canons, requiring uniformity in divine worship 
throughout provincial Churches. And it is most certain, that 
about this time, that is, in the sixth and seventh centuries, and 
before, decrees were made in several Councils, requiring the 
Churches of each’ respective province to conform their usages 
to the rites and forms of the metropolitical or principal Church 
among them. As may be seen in the canons of the Councils of 
Agde9, anno 506; and Epone29, and Girone!, anno 517; and 


9. Cha. (Ὁ pa tog a:)" Post 
recte fidei confessionem, que in 
sancta Dei ecclesia preedicatur, pla- 
cuit, ut omnes sacerdotes, qui Ca- 
tholice fidei unitate complectimur, 
nihil ultra diversum aut dissonum 
in ecclesiasticis sacramentis agamus; 
ne quelibet nostra diversitas apud 
ignotos seu carnales schismatis er- 
rorem videatur ostendere, et multis 
exstet [al. exsistat] in secandalum va- 
rietas ecclesiarum. Unus ergo ordo 
orandi atque psallendi a nobis per 
omnem Hispaniam atque Galliciam 
[leg. Galliam] conservetur: unus 
modus in missarum solemnitatibus, 
unus in vespertiniis [matutinisque | 
officiis ; nee diversa sit ultra in no- 


bis ecclesiastica consuetudo, quia 
[ἃ]. qui] in una fide continemur 
et regno. Hoc enim et antiqui 
canones decreverunt, &c. 

98 C, 30. (t. 4. p. 1388 b.) Et quia 
convenit, ordinem ecclesiz ab omni- 
bus equaliter custodiri, studendum 
est, ut, sicut ubique fit, et post anti- 
phonas collectiones per ordinem ab 
episcopis vel presbyteris dicantur, 
et hymni matutini vel vespertini 
diebus omnibus decantentur, et in 
conclusione matutinarum vel ves- 
pertinarum missarum, post hymnos 
capitella de Psalmis dicantur, et 
plebs, collecta oratione ad vesperam 
ab episcopo, cum benedictione di- 
mittatur. 


communion. 49 


ὁ 13, 14. 


the Council of Vannes 2, and the first of Braga®, anno 465 and 
563. For though by the most ancient rules every bishop had 
liberty to prescribe what he thought proper for his own 
Church, and no Churcli pretended to dictate magisterially 
in such things to any other; yet when Churches became 
subject to one political head, and national Churches arose from 
that distinction; then it was thought convenient by all the 
bishops of such a nation to unite more closely in rituals and 
circumstantials of divine worship, as well as faith and substan- 
tials: and from that time this also became a necessary part of 
the union of national Churches; in which all the bishops volun- 
tarily combining, no one could depart from that unity, without 
incurring the guilt of an unnecessary breach of that union, 
which was so convenient for cementing the several members of 
a national Church into one communion. 

14. Thus we have seen wherein the unity of the Catholic No neces- 
Church, considered in its utmost latitude, consisted. And ἜΤΕΙ head 
hence one might safely infer these two things negatively to unite all 
without any further evidence: First, That there was no neces- ee 
sity of a visible head, as now is pretended in the Church of pena 
Rome, to unite all the parts of the Catholic Church into one munion. 
communion. Nor, secondly, any necessity that the whole 
Catholic Church should agree in all rites and ceremonies, 


and customs in indifferent things, which might be various 


9 C. 27. (ibid. p. 1579 c.) Ad 
celebranda divina officia ordinem, 
quem metropolitani tenent, provin- 
ciales eorum observare debebunt. 

1 C.1. (ibid. p. 1568 a.) De insti- 
tutione missarum, ut, quomodo in 
metropolitana ecclesia fuerit, ita Dei 
nomine in omni Tarraconensi pro- 
vincia, tam ipsius missz ordo, quam 
psallendi vel ministrandi consuetudo 
servetur. 

2C.15. (ibid. p. 1057 a.) Rectum 
quoque duximus, ut vel intra pro- 
vinciam nostram sacrorum ordo et 
psallendi una sit consuetudo: et, 
sicut unam cum Trinitatis confes- 
sione fidem tenemus, unam et of- 
ficiorum regulam teneamus: ne va- 
riata observatione in aliquo devotio 
nostra discrepare credatur. 

$ CC. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. [alwiC. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


Bracar. 2. ce. 1, 2, 4,.45'5.) (kG: 
p- 840 b, c, d.) Placuit omnibus com- 
muni consensu, ut unus atque idem 
psallendi ordo in matutinis vel ves- 
pertinis officiis teneatur.—Item pla- 
cuit, ut, per solemnium dierum vigi- 
lias vel missas, omnes easdem et 
non diversas lectiones in ecclesia 
legant.—Item placuit, ut non aliter 
episcopi et aliter presbyteri popu- 
lum, sed uno modo salutent, di- 
centes, Dominus sit vobiscum, &c.— 
Item placuit, ut eodem ordine mis- 
se celebrentur ab omnibus, quem 
Profuturus quondam hujus metro- 
politane ecclesiz episcopus ab ipsa 
apostolic sedis auctoritate suscepit 
scriptum.—lItem placuit, ut nullus 
eum baptizandi ordinem pretermit- 
tat, quem et antea tenuit metropoli- 
tana Bracarensis ecclesia. 


E 


50 Union and XVL. 


in different Churches without any breach of Catholic com- 
munion. 

The former of these was sufficiently provided for by the 
agreement of all Churches in the same faith, and the obliga- 
tion that lay upon the whole college of bishops, as equal 
sharers in one episcopacy, to give mutual assistance to each 
other in all things that were necessary to defend the faith, or 
preserve the unity of the Church entire in all respects, when 
any assault was made upon it. It was by this means, and not 
by any necessary recourse to any single, visible, standing head, 
that anciently the unity of the Church was preserved. Re- 
course was sometimes had to the bishop of Rome, as an emi- 
nent bishop, who made a considerable figure in the great body 
of bishops, and one who by his station in the imperial city 
might be able to succour those that were oppressed, in times of 
great difficulty and distress: but his judgment or opimion was 
deemed no infallible rule, nor his decision such as was to con- 
clude the rest of the world, so as to tie them down in no case 
without the charge of schism to vary from him. For some- 
times the bishop of Rome fell into manifest heresy, as when 
Liberius subscribed to the Arian blasphemy: in which case 
any other bishop was not only at liberty to dissent from him, 
but was obliged, by virtue of his share in the common episco- 
pacy of the Church, to oppose him, and, if occasion required, 
to pronounce anathema against him; as St. Hilary+ did against 
Liberius, when he subscribed to the condemnation of Athana- 
sius, and to the Arian Creed made at Sirmium. Sometimes again 
the bishops of Rome took upon them to exercise a jurisdiction 
over other Churches, in whose affairs by right of canon they 
had no power: as when Pope Victor set himself to excommu- 
nicate the Asiatic Churches for their different way of observing 
Easter, he was opposed not only by the Asiatic bishops, but by 
Irenzeus and the rest of the world, as going beyond his bounds, 
and engaging himself in a rash and schismatical undertaking. 
For he, who by an undue stretch of power not belonging to 
him divides others from his communion, is properly the schis- 
matic, by making an unnecessary division in the Church, and 

4 Fragment. p. 134. (juxt. Ed. tum, Liberi, et sociis tuis.... Ite- 


Veron. 1730, Fragment. 6. c. 6. t. 2. rum tibi anathema, et tertio, prava- 
p. 679.a.) Anathema tibi a me dic- ricator Liberi. 


ὑριοδσώ oa 


communion. 51 


not they who by necessity are forced to divide from him. So 
again, when Popes Zosimus and Celestine took upon them to 
receive appellants from the African Churches, and absolve 
those whom they had condemned; St. Austin and all the 
African Churches sharply remonstrated against this as an 
illegal practice, violating the laws of unity, and the settled 
rules of ecclesiastical commerce, which required, that no delin- 
quent excommunicated in one Church should be absolved in 
another, without giving satisfaction to his own Church that 
censured him: and therefore to put a stop to this practice, and 
check the exorbitant power which the Roman bishops assumed 
to themselves, they first made a law in the Council of Milevis®, 
that no African clerk should appeal to any Church beyond sea, 
under pain of being excluded from communion in all the 


African Churches: and then afterward meeting in a general 


synod®, they dispatched letters to the bishop of Rome, to re- 
mind him how contrary this practice was to the canons of Nice, 
which ordered that all controversies should be ended in the 
places where they arose, before a council and the metropolitan. 
And they withal tell him, ‘it was unreasonable to think that 
God should enable a single person to examine the justice of a 
cause, and deny his grace to a multitude of men assembled in 
council.’ 

This evidently shows that they did not imagine any single 
person to be the centre of unity to the whole Church; or that 
all Churches were obliged to be in communion with the bishop 
of Rome. whether he were catholic or heretic; or that any 
Church, without the limits of his metropolitical power, was 
bound in any respect to submit to his jurisdiction: but it 
manifestly proves on the contrary, that there was no necessity 
of a visible head as is now pretended in the Church of Rome, 
to unite all the parts of the Catholic Church into one com- 


5 C. 22. (t.2. p. 1542 6.) Placuit, 


non provocent, nisi ad Africana Con- 
ut presbyteri, diaconi, vel ceteri in- 


cilia, vel ad primates provinciarum 


feriores clerici, in causis, quas ha- 
buerint, si de judiciis episcoporum 
suorum questi fuerint, vicini episcopi 
eos audiant: et inter eos quidquid 
est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex con- 
sensu episcoporum suorum. Quod 
si et ab eis provocandum putaverint, 


suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui 
putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra 
Africam in communionem suscipia- 
tur. 9 

6 Cod. Afric. a c. 135. ad c. 138. 
(ibid. pp. 1143 b, seqq.) 


E 2 


52 Union and XVI. i 


munion: but that in matters of faith every bishop was as much 

a guardian of the whole Church as the bishop of Rome; and 

in matters of discipline, all Churches were at liberty to hear 

and determine their own causes in a synod of bishops, without 

having recourse to any foreign jurisdiction, as has been more 

fully demonstrated in other parts of this work7, to which I 
refer the reader for greater satisfaction. 

15. It is equally clear that there was no necessity, in order 

to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church, that all Churches 

oe should agree in all the same rites and ceremonies; but every 

agree in the Church might enjoy her own usages and customs, having liberty 

sae vo, to prescribe for herself in all things of an indifferent nature, 

monies except where either an universal tradition or the decree of 

ἀπ μὰν some general or national Council, as has been noted before, 

an indiffe- intervened to make it otherwise. To this purpose is that 

rent nature. famous saying of Irenzeus®, upon occasion of the different cus- 

toms of several Churches in observing the Lent-fast : ‘ We still 

retain peace one with another, and the different ways of 

keeping the fast only the more commends our agreement in 

the faith.’ St. Jerom likewise®, speaking of the different 

customs of Churches in relation to the Saturday-fast and the 

reception of the eucharist every day, lays down this general 

rule, that all ecclesiastical traditions, which did no ways pre- 

judice the faith, were to be observed in such manner as we 

had received them from our forefathers; and the custom of 

one Church was not to be subverted by the contrary custom of 

another ; but every province might abound in their own sense, 

and esteem the rules of their ancestors as laws of the Apostles, 

After the same manner St. Austin!° says, ‘that in all such 


Nor any ne- 
cessity that 
the whole 


7 B. 2. ch. 5. v. 1. p.g4. and b. 9. 
ch. 1. 8. II. v. 3. p. 238. 

8. Ap. Euseb. 1. s. ¢..24. (v. 1. p: 
248. 4.) Ildvres...eipnvevouev πρὸς 
ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας 
τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. 

9. Ep. 28. [al.71.] δα Lucin. Beetic. 
(t. 1. p. 432 d.) Ego illud breviter te 
admonendum puto, traditiones ec- 
clesiasticas, preesertim que fidei non 
officiant, ita observandas, ut a majo- 
ribus tradite sunt : nec aliorum con- 
suetudinem aliorum contrario more 
subverti... Sed unaquaeque provin- 
cia abundet in suo sensu, et pre- 


cepta majorum leges apostolicas ar- 
bitretur. 

10 Ep. 86. [al. 36. c.1.] ad Ca- 
sulan. (t.2. p.58 e.) In his enim 
rebus, de quibus nihil certi statuit 
Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei 
vel instituta majorum pro lege te- 
nenda sunt. De quibus si disputare 
voluerimus, et ex aliorum consuetu- 
dine alios improbare, orietur inter- 
minata luctatio, que labore sermo- 
cinationis cum certa documenta nulla 
veritatis insinuet ; utique cavendum 
est, ne tempestate contentionis sere- 
nitatem caritatis obnubilet. 


δ 15. 


communion. 53 
things, whereabout the Holy Scripture has given no positive 
determination, the custom of the people of God, or the rules of 
our forefathers, are to be taken for laws. For if we dispute 
about such matters, and condemn the custom of one Church 
by the custom of another, that will be an eternal occasion of 
strife and contention; which will always be diligent enough to 
find out plausible reasonings, when there are no certain argu- 
ments to show the truth. Therefore great caution ought to be 
used that we draw not a cloud over charity and eclipse its 
brightness in the tempest of contention.’ He adds, a little 
after 11: ‘Such contention is commonly endless, engendering 
strifes, and terminating no disputes. Let us therefore main- 
tain one faith throughout the whole .Church, wherever it is 
spread, as intrinsical to the members of the body, although the 
unity of faith be kept with some different observations, which 
in no ways hinder or impair the truth of it. For all the beauty 
of the King’s daughter is within, and those observations which 
are differently celebrated are understood only to be in her out- 
ward clothing. Whence she is said to be clothed in golden 
Sringes wrought about with divers colours. But let that clo- 
thing be so distinguished by different observations, as that she 
herself may not be destroyed by oppositions and contentions 
about them.’ 

This was the ancient way of preserving peace in the Catho- 
lie Church, to let different Churches, which had no dependence 
in externals upon one another, enjoy their own liberty to follow 
their own customs without contradiction. For, as Gregory the 
Great 15 said to Leander, a Spanish bishop, ‘ there is no harm 
done to the Catholic Church by different customs, so long as 
the unity of the faith is preserved.’ And therefore, though 
the Spanish Churches differed in some customs from the 


1 Tbid. (p.77 a.)... Intermina- 
bilis est ista contentio, generans lites, 
non finiens questiones. Sit ergo 
una fides universe, que ubique di- 
latatur, ecclesiz, tanquam intus in 
membris, etiam si ipsa unitas fidei 
quibusdam diversis observationibus 
celebratur, quibus nullo modo, quod 
in fide verum est impeditur. Omnis 
enim pulchritudo filie regis intrinse- 
cus ; ille autem observationes, que 


varie celebrantur, in ejus veste in- 
telliguntur: unde ibi dicitur, In fim- 
briis aureis circumamicta varietate. 
Sed ea quoque vestis ita diversis 
celebrationibus varietur, ut non ad- 
versis contentionibus dissipetur. 

12 L. 1. Ep. 41. ad Leandr. (CC. 
t. 5. p. 1054 c.)...In una fide nihil 
officit sanctz ecclesiz consuetudo 
diversa, 


54 Union and 


Roman Church, yet he did not pretend to oblige them to 
leave their own customs and usages to follow the Roman. He 
gave a like answer to Austin, the monk, archbishop of Can- 
terbury, when he asked him, What form of divine service he 
should settle in Britain, the old Gallican, or the Roman? And 
how it came to pass, that when there was but one faith there 
were different customs in different Churches; the Roman 
Church having one form of service, and the Gallican Churches 
another? To this he replied 18, ‘ Whatever you find either in 
the Roman or Gallican, or any other Church, which may be 
more pleasing to Almighty God, I think it best that you 
should carefully select it, and settle it in the use of the English 
Church, newly converted to the faith. For we are not to love 
things for the sake of the place, but places for the sake of the 
good things we find in them. Therefore you may collect out 
of every Church whatever things are pious, religious and right; 
and putting them together, instil them into the minds of the 


English, and accustom them to the observation of them.’ 


And 


there is no question but that Austin followed this direction in 
his new plantation of the English Church. 


13 Respons. ad Quest. Augustin. 
ap. Bedam, Hist. Anglor. 1. 1. c. 27. 
(p. 63. 15.)... Mihi placet, ut sive 
in Romana, sive in Galliarum, seu 
in qualibet ecclesia aliquid invenisti, 
quod plus Omnipotenti Deo possit 
placere, solicite eligas; et in An- 
glorum ecclesia, que adhuc ad fidem 
nova est, institutione precipua, que 
de multis ecclesiis colligere potuisti, 
infundas. Non enim pro locis res, 
sed pro bonis rebus loca amanda 
sunt. Ex singulis ergo quibusque 
ecclesiis, que pia, que religiosa, 
que recta sunt elige, et hee quasi 
in fasciculum collecta apud Anglo- 
rum mentes in consuetudinem de- 
pone.—Conf. Gratian. distinct. 12. 
ς. το. (Corp. Jur. Canon. t. 1. p. 45. 
10.)—[ Luther was of the same judg- 
ment, that all Churches should have 
liberty to appoint their own rites and 
ceremonies. See Epist. t. 2. p. 243. 
ap. Scultet. Annal. Decad. Prim. 
an. 1524. (Heildelberg. 1618. 8vo. 
p. 236.) Mihi non satis tutum vi- 
detur Concilium ex nostris cogi pro 


unitate cezremoniarum statuenda. 
Est enim res mali exempli, quan- 
tumvis bono zelo tentata, ut probant 
omnia ecclesiz Concilia ab initio. 
Ita ut et in Apostolico Concilio fer- 
me de operibus et traditionibus ma- 
gis, quam de fide, sit tractatum ; in 
posterioribus vero nunquam de fide, 
sed semper de opinionibus, et quzes- 
tionibus disputatum ; ut mihi Con- 
cilior'um nomen pene tam suspectum 
et invisum sit, quam nomen liberi 
arbitrii! Si una ecclesia alteram 
sponte non vult invitari in externis 
istis, quid opus est Conciliorum de- 
cretis cogi, que mox in leges et 
animarum laqueos vertuntur? [- 
mitetur ergo altera alteram libere, 
aut suis moribus sinatur fieri, modo 
unitas Spiritus salva sit in fide et 
verbo, quantumvis sit diversitas et 
varietas in carne et elemento mun- 
di.—My ancestor having referred to 
this important passage in a manu- 
script note on the margin of his 
own first edition, I have been care- 
ful to give it here in extenso. ἘΠ}. 


XVI. i 


ee νὰν a ee 


communion. 55 


15. 
Neither was this liberty granted to different Churches in 
bare rituals, and things of an indifferent nature, but sometimes 
in more weighty points, such as the receiving or not receiving 
those that were baptized by heretics and schismatics without 
another baptism. This was a question long debated between 
the African, and Roman, and other Churches; yet without 
breach of communion, especially on their part, who followed 
the moderate counsels of Cyprian, who still pleaded for the 
liberty and independency of different Churches in this matter, 
leaving all Churches to act according to their own judgment, 
and keeping peace and unity with those that differed from 
him, as has been more fully shown in a former Book "5, where 
we discourse of the independency of bishops, especially in the 
African Churches. 
_ The reader may find an account of some other questions in 
the same place, as candidly and moderately debated among 
them ; as the question about clinic baptism, and the case of 
admitting adulterers to communion again, in which the practice 
of the African bishops was often different from one another ; 
but they neither censured each other’s practice, nor brake 
communion upon it. And sometimes the same moderation was 
observed in doctrinal points of lesser moment. For, as our 
learned and judicious writers!> have observed out of St. 
Austin 16, besides the necessary articles of faith, there are 
other things about which the most learned and exact defenders 
of the Catholic rule do not agree, without dissolving the bond 
of faith. ‘There are some questions, in which, without any 
detriment to the faith’? that makes us Christians, we may 


14 B. 2. ch. 6. v. 1. p. 00. 

15 Barrow, Of the Unity of the 
Church. (Works, at the end of v. 1. 
p- 299.) There are points of less 
moment, &c.—See also Potter, An- 
swer to Charity Mistaken, s. 3. 
(Lond. 1634. 8vo. p. 88.) 

16 Cont. Julian. Pelag. (t. 10. p. 
510 a.) Alia sunt, quibus inter se 
aliquando doctissimi atque optimi 
regule Catholic defensores, salva 
fidei compage, non consonant, &c. 

7 De Peccat. Orig. cont. Pelag. 
et Celest. 1. 2. c. 23. (t. το. p. 264 
6.) Longe aliter se habent que- 


stiones iste,....quam sunt ill in 
quibus, salva fide qua Christiani 
sumus, aut ignoratur quod verum 
sit, et sententia definitiva suspen- 
ditur; aut aliter quam est, humana 
et infirma suspicione conjicitur. Vel- 
uti cum queritur, Qualis, aut ubi 
sit Paradisus, ubi constituit Deus 
hominem, quem formavit ex pulvere? 
cum tamen esse illum Paradisum 
fides Christiana non dubitet: vel 
cum queritur, Ubi sit nunc Elias vel 
Enoch, an ibi, an alicubi alibi? quos 
tamen non dubitamus, in quibus 
nati sunt corporibus vivere: vel 


56 XVI. i 


Union and 


safely be ignorant of the truth, or suspend our opinion, or 
conjecture what is false by human suspicion and infirmity. As 
in the question about Paradise; What sort of place it is, and 
where it was that God placed the first man when he had 
formed him? Where Enoch and Elias now are, in Paradise 
or some other place? How many heavens there are, into the 
third of which St. Paul says he was taken?’ With mnu- 
merable questions of the like nature, pertaining either to the 
secret work of God, or the hidden parts of Scripture, concern- 
ing which he concludes, ‘ that a man may be ignorant of them 
without any prejudice to the Christian faith, or err about them 
without any imputation of heresy.’ This consideration made 
St. Austin!’ profess in his modesty, ‘that there were more 
things in Scripture, which he knew not, than what he did 
know.’ And if men should fiercely dispute about such things, 
and condemn one another for their ignorance or error con- 
cerning them, there would be no end of schisms and divisions 
in the Church. Therefore in such questions every man was at 
liberty to abound in his own sense, only observing this rule of 
peace, not to impose his own opinions magisterially upon others, 
nor urge his own sentiments as necessary doctrines or articles 
of faith in such points, where either the Scripture was silent, 
or left every man the liberty of opining. 


‘ea al- 16. Nay, in some cases, a little allowance was made for men 
owance < . . 

was made Of honest minds, who broke communion with one another. For 
formen, — sometimes it happened that good Catholics were divided among 

who out of ἢ 5 5 ᾿ 

simple ig- themselves out of ignorance, and broke communion with one | 
broke com. 2H0ther for mere words, not understanding each other’s senti- 
ign ments. In which case all wise and moderate men had a just 

wi one . 5 

another. | Compassion for each party, and laboured to compose and unite 


cum queeritur, Utrum in corpore an 
extra corpus in tertium ccelum sit 
raptus Apostolus? &c.—Conf. En- 
chirid. c. 59. (Ὁ. 6. p. 218 6.) Ha- 
bemus quippe in Evangelio, Ecce 
angelus Domini apparuit illisin som- 
nis dicens. His enim modis velut 
indicant se angeli contrectabilia cor- 
pora non habere: faciuntque dif- 
ficillimam quzestionem, quomodo 
patres ejus pedes laverint, quomodo 
Jacob cum angelo tam solida con- 
trectatione luctatus sit. Cum ista 


queeruntur, et ea, sicut potest, quis- 
que conjectat, non inutiliter exer- 
centur ingenia, si adhibeatur dis- 
ceptatio moderata, et absit error 
opinantium se scire quod nesciunt. 
Quid enim opus est, ut hee atgue 
hujusmodi affirmentur vel negentur 
vel definiantur cum _ discrimine, 
quando sine crimine nesciuntur ? 

18 Ep. 119. ad Januar. c. 21. (t. 
2. p. 143 d.).... Etiam in ipsis 
sanctis Scripturis multo nesciam 
plura quam sciam. 


communion. — 57 


them, without severely condemning either. Nazianzen'? tells 
us there was a time when the ends of the earth were well nigh 
divided by a few syllables. It was in a controversy about the 
use of the words τρία πρόσωπα and τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, in the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Each party was orthodox, and meant 
the same thing under different words; but not understanding 
one another’s sense, they mutually charged each other with 
heresy. They, who were for calling the Three Divine Persons 
three hypostases, charged their adversaries as Sabellians ; and 
they, on the contrary, returned the charge of Arianism upon 
them, as thinking they had taken three Aypostases in the 
Arian sense, for three essences or substances of a different na- 
ture. But the great and good Athanasius, in his admirable 
prudence and candour, seeing into the false foundation of these 
disputes, quickly put an εἰμ to them, by bringing them to a 
right understanding of each other’s sense, ae allowing them 
to use their own terms without any difference in opinion. ‘ And 
this,’ says our author, ‘ was a more beneficial act of charity to 
the Church than all his other daily labours and discourses : it 
was more honourable than all his watchings and humicubations, 
and not inferior to his flights and exiles.’ And therefore he 
tells his readers, in ushering in the discourse 2°, ‘ that he could 
not omit the relation without injuring them, especially at a 
time when contentions and divisions were in the Church; for 
this action of his would be an instruction to them that were 
then alive, and of great advantage, if they would propound it 
to their own imitation, since men were prone to divide not 
only from the impious, but from the orthodox and pious, and 
that not only about little and contemptible opinions, which 
ought to make no difference, but even about words that tended 
to the same sense, as was evident in the case before them.’ 
Such was the candour and prudence of wise and good men in 
labouring to compose the unnecessary and verbal disputes of 
the orthodox, when they unfortunately happened to clash and 
quarrel without grounds one with another. 

And they had some regard likewise to men of honest minds, 


19 Orat. 21. de Laud. Athanas. ν. 2. p. 251. n.97. 
(t. 1. Ρ. 396 a.) Πίστεως ἔδοξε δια- 20 Ibid. paul. ant. (p. 3956.) Ο δέ 
φορὰ ἡ περὶ τὸν ἦχον μικρολογία, μοι μάλιστα, κι τ. Δ. See before, 
k.T.A. See before, b.6. ch. 3. 5.9. ibid. n. 98. 


58 XVI. i. 


Union and 


who, through mere ignorance or infirmity, were engaged in 
greater errors. For they made a great distinction between 
heresiarchs and their followers; between the guides and the 
people ; and between such as were born and bred in the 
Church, and afterward apostatized into heresy, and those that 
received their errors from the tradition and seduction of their 
parents. St. Austin 2°, speaking of this latter sort, says, ‘ that 
they, who defend not a false and perverse opinion with any 
pertinacious animosity, especially if they did not by any auda- 
cious presumption of their own first invent it, but received it 
from the seduction of their erring parents, and were careful in 
their inquiries after truth, being ready to embrace it when 
they found it; that they were by no means to be reckoned 
among heretics.’ That is, they had not the formality of heresy, 
which is pride and obstinacy in error; and therefore a more 
favourable opinion might be conceived of them above others, 
who first founded heresies, or embraced them afterwards out 
of some vicious corruption of mind, having a greater regard to 
their own lusts and pleasures of unrighteousness than any sin- 
cere love for truth. Though such weak and injudicious persons 
could not be wholly excused from error, or schism, or sin, yet 
in comparison of others their case was thought capable of some 
proper allowances: and therefore they were neither so severely 
punished in the Church here, nor reputed so great objects of 
God’s displeasure hereafter. For, as Salvian?! words it in the 
case of some who embraced the Arian heresy, ‘they erred in- 
deed, but they erred with a good mind; not out of any hatred 
to God, but with affection to him, thinking thereby to honour 
and love the Lord. Although they had not the true faith, yet 
they imagined this their opinion to be perfect charity towards 
God. And how they shall be punished for this error of their 


20 Ep. 162. [al. 43. c. 1.]ad Episc. inter heereticos deputandi. 


Donat. p. 277. (t. 2. p. 88 g.) Sed 
qui sententiam suam, quamvis fal- 
sam atque perversam, nulla perti- 
naci animositate defendunt, preser- 
tim quam non audacia preesumptio- 
nis sue pepererunt, sed a seductis 
atque in errorem lapsis parentibus 
acceperunt, querunt autem cauta 
solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati 
cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt 


21 De Gubernat. 1. 5. n. 2. p. 154. 
(p- 94.) Errant ergo, sed bono ani- 
mo errant; non odio, sed affectu 
Dei, honorare se Dominum atque 
amare credentes. Quamvis non ha- 
beant rectam fidem, illi tamen hoc 
perfectam Dei estimant caritatem. 
Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsze opinio- 
nis errore in die judicii puniendi 
sunt, nullus potest scire nisi judex. 


5 τό, 17. 


59 


communion. 


false opinion in the day of judgment, no one knows but the 
Judge alone.’ 

17. This oceasioned a little distinction sometimes to be made Of different 
between heresiarchs, or the first authors of heresy, and those 2 πρὶ = 
that were ignorantly drawn into error by their seducement and pene a 
delusions, as we shall see more in speaking of the discipline ed to be in 
and censures of the Church. In the mean time, I observe that eee 
because the Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, Church, 


nor always know the means and motives that engaged them in fete se 
error or schism, she was forced to proceed commonly by an- communion 
other rule, and judge of their unity with her by their external “oe 
communion and professions. And because there were several 
sorts and degrees of unity, as we have seen before, so that a 
man might be in the communion of the Church in one respect, 
‘and out of it in another; therefore the Church went by this 
rule, to judge none to be in her perfect unity but such as were 
in full communion with her. Upon which account, though 
heretics and schismaties and excommunicate persons and pro- 
fane men were, in some sense, of the Church, as having received 
baptism, which they always retained, and as making profession 
of some part of the Christian faith; yet, because in other re- 
spects they were broken off from her, they were not esteemed 
sound and perfect members of the body, but looked upon as 
withered and decayed branches, for want of such unity in 
other respects as is necessarily required to denominate a man 
a real and complete Christian, which is a title allowed to none 
but such as are in full communion with the Church of Christ. 
This distinction between total and partial unity, and total and 
partial schism and separation, is of great use to make a man 
understand all those sayings of the Ancients, which speak of 
heretics and schismatics and excommunicate persons and pro- 
fligate sinners, as being in some measure in and of the Church, 
at the same time that they were reputed really and truly se- 
parated from her. 

Thus Optatus?? tells the Donatists ‘that they were divided 


22 L. 3. p. 72. (p. 78.) In parte 
vestis adhuc unum sumus, sed in 
diversa pendemus. Quod enim 
scissum est, ex parte divisum est, 
non ex toto concisum. Et merito, 


quia nobis et vobis una est ecclesi- 
astica conversatio: et si hominum 
litigant mentes, non litigant sacra- 
menta. Denique possumus et nos 
dicere, Pares credimus, et uno si- 


60 Ui ΕΝ and XVI. i. 


from the Church in part, not in every respect: for that was 
the nature of a schism, to be divided in part, not totally cut 
asunder. And that for very good reason, because both we and 
you have the same ecclesiastical conversation ; though the 
minds of men be at variance, the sacraments do not vary. We 
have all the same faith, we are all signed with the same seal : 
we are no otherwise baptized than you are, nor otherwise or- 
dained than you are. We all read the same divine Testament, 
we all pray to the same God. The Lord’s Prayer is the same 
with us as it is with you: but there being a rent made, as was 
said before, by the parts hanging this way and that way, an 
union was necessary to restore the whole to its integrity.’ He 
repeats this again in other places 38: ‘ Both you and we have 
the same ecclesiastical conversation, the same common lessons, 
the same faith, the same sacraments of faith, the same myste- 
ries. And upon this score he frequently tells them they were 
their brethren still, whether they would or not. ‘ Though the 
Donatists hate us,’ says he?', ‘and abhor us, and will not be 
called our brethren, yet we cannot depart from the fear of 
God: they are without doubt our brethren, though not good 
brethren. Therefore let no one wonder that I call them bre- 
thren, who cannot be otherwise than our brethren, seeing both 
they and we have one and the same spiritual nativity, though 
our actions are different from one another.’ ‘ Ye cannot but be 
our brethren,’ says he again?® to them, ‘ whom one mother the 


gillo signati sumus: nec aliter bap- 
tizati quam vos: nec aliter ordinati 
quam vos. ‘Testamentum divinum 
legimus pariter: unum Deum ro- 
gamus. Oratio Dominica apud nos 
et apud vos una est, sed scissura 
(ut supra diximus) facta, partibus 
hine atque inde pendentibus, sar- 
tura fuerat necessaria. 

23 L. 5. p. 84. (p. 99.)...Denique 
apud vos et apud nos una est eccle- 
Siastica conversatio, communes lec- 
tiones, eadem fides, ipsa fidei sacra- 
menta, eadem mysteria. 

24 L. 1. p. 34. (p. 4.) Quamvis... 
nos odio habent, et execrentur, et 
nolunt se dici fratres nostros; ta- 
men nos recedere a timore Dei non 
possumus. .. Sunt igitur sine dubio 
fratres, quamvis non boni. Quare 


nemo miretur, eos me appellare fra- 
tres, qui non possunt non esse fra- 
tres. Est quidem nobis et illis una 
spiritualis nativitas, sed diversi sunt 
actus, &c.—So in the Conference of 
Carthage, die 3. n. 233. (CC. t. 2. 
p- 1491 a. Ad cale. Optat. p. 84 b.) 
the Catholics say, Propter sacra- 
menta frater est, sive bonus sive 
malus. 

25 L. 4. p. 77. (p. 88.) Non enim 
non potestis esse fratres, quos lis- 
dem sacramentorum visceribus una 
mater ecclesia genuit; quos eodem 
modo adoptivos filios Deus Pater 
excepit ...Videtis nos non in totum 
ab invicem esse separatos, dum et 
nos pro vobis oramus volentes; et 
vos pro nobis oretis, etsi nolentes. 
Vides, frater Parmeniane, sancta 


61 


communion. 


Church hath born in the same bowels of her sacraments; whom 
one God, as a father, hath received after one and the same 
manner, as adopted children. We all pray, Our Father which 
art in heaven! whence you may perceive that we are not to- 
tally separated from one another, whilst we pray for you will- 
ingly, and you pray for us, though against your will. You 
may hence see, brother Parmenian, that the sacred bonds of 
brotherhood between us and you cannot be totally broken 
asunder.’ St. Austin26 always discourses after the same man- 
ner concerning this union in part: ‘In many things ye are 
one with us, in baptism, in the Creed, and the rest of God’s 
sacraments.’ And hence he also concludes?7, ‘that whether 
they would or no, they were their brethren, and could not 
cease to be so, so long as they continued to say, Our Father! 


germanitatis vincula inter nos et 
vos in totum rumpi non posse. 

26 Ep. 48. [al. 93.] ad Vincent. 
Beau (ea 2.,°p..249.¢,f.)..... In 
multis enim estis nobiscum....in 
baptismo, in Symbolo, in ceteris 
Dominicis sacramentis. In spiritu 
autem unitatis, et vinculo pacis, in 
ipsa denique Catholica ecclesia no- 
biscum non éstis. 

27 In Psal. 32. Serm. 2. p. 01. 
[al. Enarrat. 3.] (t. 4. p. 207 ἃ.) 
Velint nolint, fratres nostri sunt. 
Tunc esse desinent fratres nostri, si 
desierint dicere, Pater noster. Dixit 
de quibusdam Propheta, His, qui 
dicunt vobis, Non estis fratres nostri, 
dicite, Fratres nostri estis.* Cir- 
cumspicite, de quibus hoc dicere 
potuerit: numquid de Paganis? 
Non, neque enim dicimus eos fra- 
tres nostros secundum Scripturas, 
et ecclesiasticum loquendi morem. 
Numquid de Judzis, qui in Chri- 
stum non crediderunt? Legite A- 
postolum et videte, quia fratres 
quando dicit Apostolus sine aliquo 
additamento, non vult intelligi nisi 
Christianos: Non est autem subjec- 
tus, inquit, frater, aut soror in hu- 
jusmodi: cum diceret de conjugio, 
fratrem et sororem dixit Christia- 
num vel Christianam. Item dicit, 


Tu autem quid judicas fratrem tuum, 
aut tu quid spernis fratrem tuum? 
Et alio loco, Vos, inquit, iniquita- 
tem facitis et fraudatis, et hoc fra- 
tribus. Isti ergo, qui dicunt, Non 
estis fratres nostri, Paganos nos 
dicunt. Ideo enim et rebaptizare 
nos volunt, dicentes nos non ha- 
bere, quod dant. Unde consequens 
est error ipsorum, ut negent nos 
fratres suos esse. Sed quare nobis 
dixit Propheta, Vos dicite illis, Fra- 
tres nostri estis, nisi quia nos in eis 
agnoscimus, quod non repetimus ὃ 
ΠῚ: ergo non agnoscendo baptis- 
mum nostrum negant nos esse fra- 
tres: nos autem non repetendo ip- 
sorum, sed agnoscendo nostrum, 
dicimus eis, Fratres nostri estis. 
Dicant illi, Quid nos queritis, quid 
nos vultis? Respondeamus, Fratres 
nostri estis. Dicant, Ite a nobis, 
non vobiscum habemus rationem. 
Nos prorsus vobiscum rationem ha- 
bemus: unum Christum confitemur, 
in uno corpore, sub uno capite esse 
debemus. Quid ergo me queris, 
ait, si perii?.. Quare quererem, nisi 
quia periisti? Si ergo perii, inquit, 
quomodo sum frater tuus? Ut di- 
catur mihi de te, Frater tuus mor- 
tuus erat, et revixit ; perierat, et in- 
ventus est, &c. 


* [See Albaspiny in Optat. 1. τ. (p. 4. n. t. in verba, Ve facienlibus velumen), 


alleging Is. 66, 5, as then read. Ep. } 


62 Union and communion. XV. & 


and did not renounce their creed and their baptism. For there 
was no medium between Christians and Pagans. If they re- 
tained faith, and baptism, and the common prayer of the Lord, 
which teaches all men to style God their Father; so far they 
were Christians: and as far as they were Christians, so far 
they were brethren, though turbulent and contentious, who 
would neither keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace, nor continue to be united in the Catholic Church with 
the rest of their brethren.’ 

By all this it is evident, 1. That there were different degrees 
of unity and schism, according to the proportion of which, a 
man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or 
divided from it. 2. That they, who retained faith and baptism 
and the common form of Christian worship, were in those 
respects one with the Church; though in other respects, 
wherein their schism consisted, they were divided from her. 
So they might be said to be brethren, and not brethren; sons 
of God, and not sons of God; of the house of God, and not of 
the house of God; according to the different acceptations of 
these terms, and the different proportion and degrees of that 
unity or schism, whereby they were united to the Church, or 
separated from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination 
of a true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was neces- 
sary that he should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, 
be in perfect and full communion with the Church; that is, in 
faith, in baptism, in holiness of life, in charity, in worship, and 
all holy offices, and in all the necessary parts of government 
and discipline: but to denominate a man a schismatic, it was 
sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect ; 
though the malignity of his schism was to be interpreted more 
or less, according to the degrees of the separation that he 
made from her. And by these rules it is easy for any one to 
understand, what the Ancients meant by unity and schism, and 
how the discipline of the Church was exercised and maintained 
by obliging men to live in perfect and full communion with 
her, which I come now more particularly to explain and 
consider. 


| ὁ εἰ 


Bit7. 11. I. The discipline of the Church. 63 


CHAP. 11: 


Of the discipline of the Church, and the various kinds of it, 
together with the various methods observed in the ad- 
ministration of it. 


1. The discipline of the Church being intended, as was That the 
ἐ : : discipline of 
observed betore, only to preserve the unity and purity of her jr ὄμμα 
own members in one communion, we are not to look for the did notcon- 


exercise of it upon any but such as in some measure made por Fa 
profession of being joined in society with her; which were disannul- 
either baptized persons, or at least candidates of baptism: for rants eae 
she pretended not to exercise discipline upon any others which *™ 
were without, but such only as were within the pale, in the 

_ largest sense, by some act of their own profession. And even 
upon these she never pretended to exercise her discipline so 
far as to cancel or disannul their baptism, so as to oblige them 
to take a second baptism, if their first was good, in order to be 
admitted into the Church again, when for any crime they were 
cast out of it. For even heretics and apostates, who made the 
greatest breach of Christian unity, were never so far divided 
from the Church, but that still they retained some distant 
relation to her by baptism, whose character was indelible, even 
in the greatest apostasy that can be imagined, even in the 
total abjuration of the Christian faith: the obligation of their 
baptism still lay upon them, and with what severity soever 
they were treated in their repentance, if ever they returned to 
the Church again, there is no instance of receiving them by a 
second baptism, which, if once lawfully given, was for ever 
after forbidden to be repeated upon any account whatsoever. 
I will not stand to prove this here, because I have had occasion 
once or twice before 2° to speak largely upon it; but only ob- 
serve, that it was no part of the discipline of the Church to 
deny men the original right they had in baptism; and con- 
sequently that the most formal casting them out of communion 
was never intended to signify that they were mere Heathens 
and Pagans, and that they could not be admitted again into the 
Church without a repetition of their baptism. 


28 B. 12. ch. 5. v. 4. p.249-, and part 2. ch. 6., in the ninth volume 
Scholastic History of Lay-Baptism, this Edition. 


64 The discipline XVI. ii. 


Butinex- 2. But the discipline of the Church consisted in a power to 
pe deprive men of all the benefits and privileges of baptism, by 


en from 
the com- turning them out of the society and communion of the Church 
mon bene- . ᾿ . Ὁ : 
fits and pri- 1n which these privileges were only to be enjoyed; such as 
vileges con- joining in public prayer, and receiving the eucharist, and other 
sequent to eS Α a 
baptism. acts of divine worship: and sometimes they were wholly for- 
bidden to enter the church, so much as to hear the Scriptures 
read or hear a sermon preached, till they showed some signs of 
relenting ; and every one shunned and avoided them in common 
conversation, partly to establish the Church’s censures and pro- 
ceedings against them, and partly to make them ashamed, and 
partly to secure themselves from the danger of contagion and 
infection. 
This power 9. Thus far the Church went in her censures by her own 
a natural right and power, but no further: for her power origi- 
ritual pow- nally was a mere spiritual power; her sword only a spiritual 
ee sword, as Cyprian?9 terms it, to affect the soul, and not the 
scarce " body. Over the bodies of men she pretended no power; no 
was called nor yet over their estates, except such as were purely ecclesi- 
τὐλω a astical, and of her own donation, to resume what was her own 
ance. property and gift from such as were contumacious and rebel- 
lious against her censures. In which case she sometimes craved 
assistance from the secular power, even whilst it was Heathen, 
and more frequently when it was become Christian. Thus 
when the Council of Antioch had deposed Paulus Samosatensis, 
and substituted Domnus in his room, but could not remove 
him by any power of their own from the house belonging to 
the Church, which he still kept possession of, they had recourse 
to Aurelian, the Heathen emperor, who did them justice upon 
appeal, ordering the house to be delivered to those to whom 
the bishops of Italy and Rome should write with approbation : 
‘and so,’ says Eusebius®°, ‘Paul was cast out of the Church 
with the highest disgrace by the help of the secular power.’ 
This was more common after the emperors were become 
Christians : for then they could with greater liberty and con- 


fidence appeal to them, and beg their assistance upon such 


29 Ep. 62. [al. 4.] ad Pomponian. 30 L. 7. c. 30. (v. I. p. 364. 10.)... 
p- 9. (p. 175-)....Spiritali gladio Mera τῆς ἐσχάτης αἰσχύνης ὑπὸ τῆς 
superbi et contumaces necantur, κοσμικῆς ἀρχῆς ἐξελαύνεται τῆς ἐκκλη- 
dum de ecclesia ejiciuntur. σίας. 


ΔΙ δνδν «νυν μυννωννονιν... ὦ. ἀ 


of the Church... 65 


occasions. And then canons were made to authorize such ad- 
dresses, that the censures of the Church might have their 
effect and force upon contumacious and obstinate offenders. 
Such an order was made in the Council of Antioch?!, anno 
341, in the reign of Constantius, ‘ that if a presbyter who set 
up a separate meeting against his bishop, and was, after admo- 
nition, deposed for his crime, still continued obstinately to 
disturb and subvert the Church, he should be corrected by the 
external power, (that is, the civil magistrate) as a seditious 
person.’ Such another canon was made in the third Council 
of Carthage®?, in the case of one Cresconius, an African 
bishop, who having left his own bishopric, and intruded himself 
into another, where he stayed in spite of all ecclesiastical cen- 
sures, orders were given to petition the secular magistrate by 
his authority to remove him. And this canon was inserted as 
a general and standing rule into the African Code 33: where 
we have also a like constitution®4 against such presbyters as 
set up new bishoprics in the diocese of their own bishop with- 
out his consent: they were ‘to be deprived and removed out 
of such places as rebels; ἀρχοντικῇ δυναστείᾳ, by the governing 
power of the secular magistrate. And in another canon®> 
mention is made of ‘letters to be sent from the Synod to the 
magistrates of Africa, to petition them to yield their assistance 
to their common mother, the Catholic Church, against the 
Donatists, forasmuch as the authority of bishops was con- 


31 Ὁ, 5. (t. 5 - Pp. 504 d.).... Εἰ de 


ἀδείας ἡμῖν γενέσθαι" ὅτι αὕτη ἡ ἀν- 


παραμένοι δορυβὰν καὶ ἀναστατῶν τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν, διὰ τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐξουσίας 
ὡς στασιώδη αὐτὸν ἐπιστρέφεσθαι. 

32 C. 38. (ibid. p.1172 ¢.).... Ut 
dignemini dare diam, qua, ne- 
cessitate ipsa cogente, liberum sit 
ad presidem regionis adversus illum 
accedere, secundum constitutionis 
cl. imperatorum .... ut szcularis 
magistratus auctoritate prohibeatur. 
[Se omewhat differently worded in 

bbe. See also Crabbe’s Edition, 
(t.1. p. 429.)....Ut qui miti ad- 
monitioni sanctitatis vestre acqui- 
escere noluit, et emendare illicitum, 
auctoritate judiciaria protinus ex- 
cludatur. Ep. | 

33 C. 49. [al. 48.) (ibid. p. 1071 
d.) Αἰτοῦμεν κατὰ τὸ ἐνταλὲν ἡμῖν, 
ἵνα καταξιώσητε δοῦναι παρρησίαν ἐπ᾽ 

BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


ayn παρασκευάζει τῷ ἄρχοντι τῆς 
χώρας κατ᾽ ἐκείνου προσελθεῖν, κατὰ 
διατάξεις τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων βασιλέων, 
ἵνα ὁ τῇ πράῳ ὑπομνήσει τῆς ὑμετέρας 
ἁγιωσύνης πειθαρχῆσαι "μὴ θελήσας, 
καὶ διορθώσασθαι τὸ ἀσυγχώρητον, 
αὐθεντίᾳ ἀρχοντικῇ παραχρῆμα κω- 
λυθῇ. 

34 Thid. c. 54. [al. 53-] (p. 1078 

.).+++Kal τῶν ἰδίων τόπων ἀρχον- 
τικῇ στερῆσαι, ὡς ἀντάρτας, δυνα- 
στείᾳ. 

98 Ibid. c. 73. fal. 77] (p. Togo 
6.) "Hpece τοίνυν, ἵνα ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας 
συνόδου γράμματα πρὸς τοὺς τῆς 
᾿Αφρικῆς ἄρχοντας δοθῶσιν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν 
αἰτῆσαι ἱΑρμόδιον ἔδοξε, περὶ τοῦ βο- 
ηθῆσαι τῇ “κοινῇ μητρὶ, τῇ Καθολικῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐν οἷς ἡ τῶν ἐπισκόπων αὐ- 
θεντία ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καταφρονεῖται. 

Ε 


66 The discipline AVE 


temned in every city.’ This petition is more particularly ex- 
‘plained in another canon®®, which grants a commission to 
certain bishops to go as legates in the name of the Church to 
the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, and complain of the 
violences offered by the Donatists, who had invaded many of 
their churches, and kept them by force; against which they 
desired the emperors to grant them a suitable help by a mili- 
tary guard; ‘it being no unusual thing, nor against the Serip- 
ture, to be protected, as St. Paul was, by a band of soldiers 
against the conspiracy of insolent and factious men.’ They 
requested also ‘ that the emperors would put in execution the 
law which Theodosius their father, of pious memory, had 
enacted against heretics, whereby every one that ordained or 
was ordained by them, was amerced in the sum of ten pounds 
of gold.’ The law they refer to is still exstant in the Theodo- 
sian Code 37, running in these terms: ‘ If proof is made against 
any who are engaged in heretical errors, that they either have 
ordained clerks, or received the office of a clerk, a mulct of ten 
pounds in gold is by our order to be imposed upon them: and 
the place in which any of these unlawful things were attempted, 
if done by the connivance of the owner, shall be confiscated. 
But if the possessor was ignorant of the matter, then he that 
rented the farm, if he be a freeman, shall forfeit ten pounds of 
gold to the exchequer ; or if he be descended of a servile con- 
dition, and cannot bear the penalty, then he shall be beaten 
with rods, and sent into banishment.’ 


36 Tbid. C95: [al. 93-] (p. 1110 


c.) Kara οὖν τῆς ἐκείνων μανίας υνά- 
μεθα συμμαχίας θείας τυχεῖν, | οὐκ ἀή- 
θους δὲ, οὐδὲ ἀλλοτρίας a ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων 
Γραφῶν, ὁπόταν Παῦλος 6 ᾿Απόστο- 
λος, ὡς ταῖς ἀληθιναῖς Πράξεσι τῶν 
᾿Αποστόλων δεδήλωται, τὴν σύμπνοιαν 
τῶν ἀτάκτων στρατιωτικῇ ἀπεκίνησε 
βοηθείᾳ. : “Apa Kal τοῦτο δεῖ αἰτῆ- 
σαι, ὥστε τὸν νόμον, τὸν ἐκτεθέντα 
παρὰ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης πατέ- 
ρος αὐτῶν Θεοδοσίου, τὸν περὶ τῶν 
δέκα τοῦ χρυσίου λιτρῶν, τὸν κατὰ 
τῶν χειροτονούντων καὶ χειροτονου- 
μένων αἱρετικῶν φυλάξωσιν, ἔ ἔτι “μὴν 
καὶ κατὰ κτητόρων, τῶν παρ᾽ οἷς ἡ 
ἐκείνων εὑρεθῇ συναγωγή" εἶθ᾽ οὕτως 
βεβαιωθῆναι τὸν τοιοῦτον νόμον κε- 
λεύσωσιν, ὡς ἰσχύειν κατὰ τούτων, ὧν 


διὰ τὰς ἐπιβουλὰς οἱ τῆς Καθολικῆς 
προτραπέντες διαμαρτυρίαν ἀπέθεντο. 
ὅ7 L. τό. t. 5. de Heereticis, leg. 
21. (t. 6. p. 138.) In hereticis erro- 
ribus quoscunque constiterit vel or- 
dinasse clericos, vel suscepisse offi- 
cium clericorum, denis libris auri 
viritim mulctandos esse censemus : 
locum sane, in quo vetita temptan- 
tur, si conhibentia domi patuerit, 
fisci nostri viribus aggregarl. Quod 
si id possessorem (quippe clanculum 
gestum) ignorasse constiterit, con- 
ductorem ejus fundi, si ingenuus 
est, decem auri libras fisco nostro 
inferre preecipimus : si, servili feece 
descendens, paupertate sui penam 
damni ac vilitate contemnit, czesus 
fustibus deportatione damnabitur. 


of the Church. 67 


This was that famous penal law of Theodosius against all 
heretics in general, so often mentioned by St. Austin, and which 
he with the rest of the African fathers desired Honorius to 
confirm, so that it might specify and affect the Donatists, more 
particularly such of them as by open or secret violence made 
assaults upon the Catholic Church. They did not desire that 
this penalty should be inflicted indifferently upon all the Dona- 
tists, but only such as the Circumeellions and others, who in 
their mad zeal and fury committed violent outrages against the 
Catholics: but Honorius extended the penalty to them all, 
and enforced the old law of Theodosius his father, by a new 
law of his own’, wherein the Donatists were particularly 
named as heretics, who upon conviction or confession were to 


be fined in the sum of ten pounds of gold, according to the 


tenour of the former law. 

No one better understood either the reasons or the effects of 
this law than St. Austin, and therefore it cannot be better 
explained than, as Gothofred does it, in his words. Now he, 
writing to Count Boniface, an African magistrate, gives this 
account of it. ‘ Before those laws,’ says he®9, ‘ were sent into 
Afric, which compel heretics to come into the Church, some of 
our brethren, among whom I was one, were of opinion, that 
although the madness of the Donatists raged every where, yet 
we should not petition the emperors to forbid any one simply 
to be of that heresy, by inflicting punishment on all that 
embraced it, but only desire them to make a law to restrain 


88 Tbid. leg. 39. (p.158.) Dona- 
tistee superstitionis hzreticos, quo- 
cunque loci, vel fatentes, vel con- 
victos, legis tenore servato, penam 
debitam absque dilatione persolvere 
decernimus. 

89 Ep. 1. [al. 185. c. 7.] ad Boni- 
fac. p. 84. (t. 2. p. 653 f.) Verun- 
tamen antequam iste leges, quibus 
ad convivium sanctum coguntur in- 
trare, in Africam mitterentur, non- 
nullis fratribus videbatur, in quibus 
et ego eram, quamvis Donatistarum 
rabies usquequaque seviret, non 
esse petendum ab imperatoribus, ut 
ipsam hzeresin juberent omnino non 
esse, poenam constituendo eis, qui 
in illa esse voluissent; sed hoc po- 


tius constituerent, ut eorum furiosas 
violentias non paterentur qui veri- 
tatem Catholicam vel predicarent 
loquendo, vel legerent constituendo. 
Quod eo modo fieri aliquatenus 
posse arbitrabamur, si legem piissi- 
mz memorize Theodosii, quam ge- 
neraliter in omnes heereticos pro- 
mulgavit, ut quisquis eorum episco- 
pus vel clericus, ubilibet esset inven- 
tus, decem libris auri mulctaretur, ex- 
pressius in Donatistas, qui se nega- 
bant hereticos, ita confirmarent, ut 
non omnes ea mulcta ferirentur, sed 
in quorum regionibus aliquas violen- 
tias a clericis, vel a Circumcellioni- 
bus, vel populis eorum, ecclesia Ca- 
tholica pateretur: ut scilicet post 


F2 


68 The discipline XVI. ii 


them from offering violence to any that either preached or 
held the Catholic faith. Which we thought might in some 
measure be done after this manner: if the law of Theodosius 
of pious memory, which he had promulged against all heretics 
in general, that whoever was found to be a bishop or clerk 
anywhere among them, should forfeit ten pounds in gold, were 
more expressly confirmed against the Donatists, who denied 
themselves to be heretics in such a manner as that the penalty 
should not be inflicted upon them all, but only upon those, in 
whose regions the Catholic Church suffered violence from their 
clergy, or the Circumcellions, or their people, so as after the 
protestation of the Catholics, who suffered from them, the 
magistrates should compel their bishops or ministers to pay the 
fine. For so we thought that by this means they might be 
terrified from daring any such attempts, and the Catholic truth 
might be taught and held freely, so as no one should be com- 
pelled to it, but every one that would might embrace it without 
fear, and we should have no false or counterfeit Catholics. And 
though others of our brethren were of a different opinion, who 
by thew age had greater experience, and could plead the 
example of many cities and places, where we saw the Catholic 
Church firmly and truly settled, which yet was there settled by 
such kind methods of Divine Providence, whilst men were com- 
pelled by the laws of former emperors to come into the Ca- 
tholic communion, yet notwithstanding this we prevailed that 
our petition should be presented to the emperors in the fore- 


protestationem Catholicorum, qui ad communionem homines Catholi- 


fuissent ista perpessi, jam cura or- 
dinum ad persolvendam mulctam 
episcopi sive ministri ceteri tene- 
rentur. Ita enim existimabamus, 
eis territis ut nihil tale facere auden- 
tibus, posse libere doceri et teneri 
Catholicam veritatem, ut ad eam 
cogeretur nemo, sed eam, qui sine 
formidine vellet, sequeretur, ne fal- 
sos et simulatores Catholicos habe-~ 
remus. Et quamvis aliis fratribus 
aliud videretur, jam etate graviori- 
bus, vel multarum civitatum et loco- 
rum exempla cernentibus, ubi fir- 
mam et veram Catholicam videba- 
mus, que tamen ibi talibus beneficiis 
Dei constituta esset atque firmata, 
dum per priorum imperatorum leges 


cam cogerentur; obtinuimus tamen, 
ut illud potius, quod dixi, ab impera- 
toribus peteretur: decretum est in 
concilio nostro, legati ad comitatum 
missi sunt. Sed Dei major miseri- 
cordia, qui sciret, harum legum ter- 
ror, et quedam medicinalis molestia 
quam multorum esset’ pravis vel fri- 
gidis animis necessaria, et illi du- 
ritize, que verbis emendari non pot- 
est, sed tamen aliquantula severitate 
discipline potest, id egit, ut legati 
nostri, quod susceperant, obtinere 
non possent. Jam enim nos pre- 
venerant ex aliis locis quedam epi- 
scoporum querele gravissime, qui 
mala fuerant ab ipsis multa_per- 
pessi, et a suis sedibus exturbati ; 


obtain the thing they had undertaken. 


of the Church. 69 


said form. And thereupon a decree was drawn up in council, 
and our legates were dispatched to court. But the greater 
mercy of God, who better knew how necessary the terror of 
such laws, and a little medicinal trouble is, for the wicked or 
cold hearts of many men, and for that hardness of mind which 
cannot be corrected by words, but may by a little severity of 
discipline, so ordered the matter, that our legates could not 
For before they could 
get to court to present our petition, several grievous complaints 
had been made by the bishops of other places, who had suf- 
fered extremely from the Donatists, and were driven from their 
sees by them: especially the horrible and incredible murder of 
Maximian, the Catholic bishop of Vaga, made it impossible for 


-our embassy to succeed. For now a law was already promulged 


against the barbarous Donatist heresy, the very sparing which 
seemed more cruel than the cruelty which themselves exercised, 
that not only its violence, but its very being should not be 
tolerated or suffered to go unpunished. Yet to observe Christian 
meekness, even toward the unworthy, the penalty proposed was 
not death, but only a pecuniary mulct, and banishment for the 
bishops and ministers.’ Then relating particularly the barbarous 
usage of Maximian, and their unparalleled cruelty towards him, 
he adds, ‘ that the emperor being well apprised of these facts, 
in his great piety and concern for religion, chose rather univer- 
sally to correct that impious error by wholesome laws, and 


precipue horrenda et incredibilis 
eedes Maximiani, episcopi Catho- 
lici ecclesiee Bagaiensis effecit, ut 
nostra legatio jam, quid ageret, non 
haberet. Jam enim lex fuerat pro- 
mulgata, ut tante immanitatis he- 
resis Donatistarum, cui crudelius 
parci videbatur, quam ipsa szeviebat, 
non tantum violenta esse, sed om- 
nimo esse non sineretur impune : 
non tamen supplicio capitali, propter 
servandam etiam circa indignos man- 
suetudinem Christianam, sed pecuni- 
ariis damnis propositis, et in episco- 
pos vel ministros eorum exsilio con- 
stituto, &c.—Ibid. (p. 655 d.) Hine 
ergo factum est, ut imperator religio- 
sus et pius, perlatis in notitiam suam 
talibus caussis, mallet piissimis legi- 
bus illius impietatis errorem omnino 
corrigere, et eos, qui contra Christum 


Christi signa portarent, ad unitatem 
Catholicam terrendo et coércendo 
redigere, quam seviendi tantum- 
modo auferre licentiam, et errandi 
ac pereundi relinquere. ‘Tum vero, 
cum ips leges venissent in Africam, 
precipue illi, qui queerebant occasio- 
nem, aut szevitiam furentium metue- 
bant, aut suos verecundabantur of- 
fendere,ad ecclesiam continuo trans- 
ierunt. Multi etiam, qui sola illic 
a parentibus tradita consuetudine 
tenebantur, qualem vero causam 
ipsa heeresis haberet, nunquam antea 
cogitaverant, nunquam querere et 
considerare voluerant, mox ubi cee- 
perunt adyertere et nihil in ea dig- 
num invenire, propter quod tanta 
damna paterentur, sine ulla difficul- 
tate Catholici facti sunt. Docuit 
enim eos solicitudo, quos negli- 


70 The discipline XVI. ii. 


reduce those who carried the badge of Christ"against Christ to 
Catholic unity by terror and punishment, than barely to take 
from them the liberty of exercising their cruelty, and leave 
them at liberty to err and perish.’ He observes further, * that 
as soon as ever these laws appeared in Afric, they wrought 
wonderful effects upon the minds of men: for immediately all 
such as waited only for a proper occasion, or were kept back 
merely by the dread of the cruelty of those frantic men, or 
were afraid to offend their relations, came over at once to the 
Catholic Church. Many also, who were detained in schism 
merely by the custom they had been trained up to by their 
parents, but had never spent a thought about the grounds and 
reasons of their error, nor would consider or make any in- 
quiry into the merits of the cause, when once they began to 
consider it, and found nothing in it worth suffering so great 
loss. they without any difficulty became Catholic Christians. 
For a concern for their own safety brought them to under- 
standing, who before were grown negligent by security. Many 
also, who were less capable of understanding and judging by 
themselves what was the difference between the error of the 
Donatists and the Catholic truth, were induced to follow the 
authority and persuasion of so many examples going before 
them. So the true mother received great multitudes of people 
into her bosom again rejoicing, and only an hardened com- 
pany remained obstinate by their unhappy animosity in that 
pernicious way. And many of these also communicated with 
the Church by a sort of dissimulation : but they who at first 
dissembled afterwards by degrees accustoming themselves to 
the way of the Church, and hearing the preaching of truth, 
especially after the conference and disputation which was held 
between their bishops and us at Carthage, did at last for the 
most part correct their errors also.’ 


gentes securitas fecerat. Istorum mositate sistentes. 


autem omnium precedentium aucto- 
ritatem et persuasionem secuti sunt 
multi, qui minus idonei erant per se 
ipsos intelligere, quid distaret inter 
Donatistarum errorem et Catholicam 
veritatem. Ita cum magna agmina 
populorum vera mater in sinum 
gaudens reciperet, remanserunt tur- 
bee dure, et in illa peste infelici ani- 


Ex his quoque 
plurimi simulando communicave- 
runt, alii paucitate latuerunt. Sed 
illi, qui simulabant, paullatim assu- 
escendo et predicationem veritatis 
audiendo, maxime post collationem 
et disputationem, que inter nos et 
episcopos eorum apud Carthaginem 
fuit, ex magna parte correcti sunt. 


(6. 


of the Church. 71 


This is the account which St. Austin gives both of the rea- 
sons and effects of this penal law, which he frequently mentions 
in other places?°, carefully collected by Gothofred, but needless 
here to be recited. I only observe these few things upon the 
whole matter. 1. That though it was no part of the Church’s 
discipline to use any manner of force to give effect to her cen- 
sures; yet in case of obstinate opposition and contempt she did 
not think it unlawful to take the assistance of the secular 
power. 2. That in case of violence offered to the Church or 
any of her ministers or her members, there was still more 
reason to petition for defence against them. 3. That it was 
generally thought useful to inflict some moderate temporal 


40 Ep. 68. [4]. 88.] ad Januar. (t. 


2. p. 216 f.).... Crispinus judicatus 


hereticus, nec peena decem librarum 
auri, que in hereticos ab imperato- 
ribus fuerat constituta, mansuetudi- 
nem Catholicam feriri permissus est, 
et tamen ad imperatores appellan- 
dum putavit. Cujus appellationi 
quod ita responsum est, nonne ves- 
trorum precedens improbitas et ea- 
dem ipsius appellatio extorsit, ut 
fieret: nec tamen etiam post ipsum 
rescriptum, intercedentibus apud 
imperatorem nostris episcopis, ea- 
dem auri condemnatione mulctatus 
est? Ex concilio autem nostri epi- 
scopi legatos ad comitatum mise- 
runt, qui impetrarent, ut non omnes 
episcopi et clerici partis vestre ad 
eandem condemnationem decem li- 
brarum auri, que in omnes heereti- 
cos constituta est, tenerentur; sed 
hi soli, in quorum locis aliquas a 
vestris violentias ecclesia Catholica 
pateretur. Sed cum legati Romam 
venerunt, jam cicatrices episcopi Ca- 
tholici Bagaitani horrendz ac recen- 
tissimze imperatorem commoverant, 
ut leges tales mitterentur; quales et 
miss sunt.—Ep. 166. [al. 105.] ad 
Donatistas. (ibid. p. 298 b.) Et ta- 
men cum Crispinus propter hoc fac- 
tum in proconsulari judicio convin- 
ceretur hereticus, ejusdem episcopi 
Possidii intercessu decem libras auri 
non est exactus. Cui benevolentize 
et mansuetudini ingratus ad impe- 
ratores Catholicos ausus est appel- 
lare. Unde hance in vos iram Dei 


de qua murmuratis, multo importu- 
nius et vehementius provocavit.— 
Cont. Crescon. 1. 3. 6. 47. (t. 9. p- 
461 g. et p. 462 a.) Exhibitus igitur 
Crispinus, et, quod se esse procon- 
suli querenti negaverat, facillime 
convictus hzreticus, decem tamen 
libras auri, quam mulctam in omnes 
hzreticos imperator major Theodo- 
sius constituerat, intercedente Pos- 
sidio, non est compulsus exsolvere. 
Qua mitissima sententia non con- 
tentus, nescio guo consilio, quod 
displicuisse vestris omnibus diceba- 
tur, ad ejusdem Theodosii filios pro- 
vocandum putavit. Acceptatum est, 
rescriptum est. Quid aliud, nisi 
quod pars Donati jam sciret se ad 
illam peenam aurariam cum ceteris 
hereticis pertinere ? &c.—Cont. Li- 
ter. Petilian. 1. 2. c. 83. (ibid. p. 269 
b, c.) Ipsa ecclesia Catholica soli- 
data principibus Catholicis impera- 
toribus terra marique armatis turbis 
ab Optato atrociter et hostiliter op- 
pugnata est. Que res coégit tunc 
primo adversus vos allegari apud 
vicarium Seranum legem illam de 
decem libris auri, quas nullus ves- 
trum adhuc pendit, et nos crudeli- 
tatis arguitis.— Ep. 173. [al. 66.] 
ad Crispin. ipsum. (t. 2. p. 155 b.) 
Nam possemus agere, ut decem li- 
bras auri secundum imperatoria jus- 
sa persolveres. An forte propterea 
non habes, unde reddas, quod dare 
jussi sunt rebaptizatores, dum mulc- 
tam erogas, ut emas, quos rebaj- 
tizes ὃ 


72 The discipline AVI 


‘punishments upon obstinate heretics, and schismaties, and other 
offenders, (with a liberty of indulging and remitting the penalty 
as prudence directed,) in order to bring them to consider and 
examine the grounds of truth and error, and humble them by 
repentance, and restore them to the communion of the Church 
from whence they were fallen. 


This assist- 4. But then it is also to be considered, that the Church 
ance never Β ic 3 a 
aetia never encouraged any magistrate to proceed further in her 
proceed so behalf against any one for any mere error or ecclesiastical 
far, as, for af 1 ‘a aAhoudeli ery 2 Ζ 
mere error, Misdemeanour, than to punish the delinquent with a pecumary 
το an mulct, or bodily punishment short of death, such as confisca- 
away life,or . Z ‘ 5 : F 

hed blood. tion or banishment, unless it were in case of capital crimes, and 


of a civil nature, which fell directly under the cognizance of 
the civil magistrate, as treason or rebellion, which the imperial 
laws punished with death. There are indeed some laws in the 
Theodosian Code which order heretics to be prosecuted with 
capital punishments. Theodosius made a decree 5} against some 
of the Manichees, which went by the name of Eneratites, Sac- 
cophori, and Hydroparastate, that they should be punished 
with death, at the same time that the Solitarii, another sect 
among them, should only suffer confiscation. Honorius also 
renewed the same law* against them: and in two other laws4? 
he ordered the Donatists in Afric to be put to death if they 
held any public conventicles to the prejudice of the Catholic 
faith, revoking all tolerations that had been granted them be- 
fore. But as these laws were very rare. so they may be sup- 
posed to be made upon some particular provocation of their 
enormities, such as the Manichees were guilty of; or their 
barbarous outrages committed against the Catholics, such as 


41 Cod. de 


Theod. 1. 16. tit. 5. 
Heereticis, leg. 9. (Ὁ. 6. p. 124.) Ca- 
terum quos Encratitas prodigiali ap- 
pellatione cognominant, cum Sac- 
coforis sive Hydroparastatis. ..... 
Summo supplicio et inexplicabili 
peena jubemus affligi. 

42 Thid. leg. 35. (p. 153.) Noxios 
Manicheos, execrabilesque eorum 
conventus, dudum justa animadver- 
sione damnatos, etiam speciali pre- 
ceptione cohiberi decernimus. Qua- 
propter queesiti adducantur in pub- 


licum, ac detestati criminosi congrua 
et severissima emendatione rese- 
centur. 

43 Tbid. leg. 51. (p. 170.) Oraculo 
penitus remoto, quo ad ritus suos 
heereticze superstitiones obrepserant, 

sciant omnes sancte legis inimici 
plectendos se poena proscriptionis et 
sanguinis, si ultra convenire per 
publicum execranda sceleris sui te- 
meritate temptaverint. An. 410.— 
Conf. leg. 56. (p. 180.) Sciant Bi 
qui, &c. 


of the Church. 73 


the Circumeellions among the Donatists every where stand 
charged with. 

Then again, it was as rare to find these laws at any time put 
in execution against them. For we scarce find an instance 
before Priscillian of any heretic suffering death barely for his 
opinion. Sozomen **, speaking of this law of Theodosius, says 
it was made more for terror than execution. And Chryso- 
stom 4° at the same time delivered his opinion freely, ‘ that the 
tares were not thus to be rooted out: for if heretics were to 
be put to death, there would be nothing but eternal war in the 
world. Christ does not prohibit us to restrain heretics, to stop 
their mouths, to cut off their liberty, and their meetings, and 
their conspiracies, but only to kill and slay them.’ St. Austin 


seems not to have known any thing of this law of Theodosius ; 


and for those of Honorius, they were not yet enacted against 
the Donatists when he wrote against them. Therefore writing 
frequently to the African magistrates, he tells them the law 
gave them no power to put any Donatist to death. Thus in 
his letter to Dulcitius, the tribune 46, ‘ You,’ says he, ‘ have not 
received the power of the sword against them by any laws, 
neither by any imperial injunctions, which you are obliged to 
execute, are you commanded to put them to death.’ So he 
tells Petilian47, the Donatist bishop, ‘ that God had so ordered 
the matter in his providence, having the hearts of kings in his 
hand, that though the emperor had made many laws to admo- 
nish and correct them, yet there was no imperial law which 
commanded them to be put to death. The judges indeed had 
power to punish malefactors with death, as murderers, and the 


4 L. 7. ¢. 12. (v. 2. p. 293. 34.) 
- Καὶ χαλεπὰς τοῖς νόμοις ἐπέγραφε 
ψυμώρίαε" ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ “ἐπεξηει" οὐ γὰρ 
τιμωρεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς δέος καθιστᾷν 
τοὺς ὑπηκόους ἐσπούδαζεν. 

45 Hom. 47. [Benced. 46. al. 47.] 
in Matth. Pp. 422. (t. 7. Ὁ. 482, Ὁ, c.) 
Τί οὖν δεσπότης: κωλύει, λέγων, Μή 
ποτε ἐκριζώσητε ἅμα αὐτοῖς τὸν σῖτον. 
Τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγε, κωλύων πολέμους γί- 
νεσθαι καὶ ᾿ αἵματα καὶ σφαγάς" οὐ γὰρ 
δεῖ ἀναιρεῖν αἱρετικόν" ἐπεὶ [6] πόλε- 
μος ἄσπονδος εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην ἔμελ- 
λεν εἰσάγεσθαι irked Οὐ τοίνυν κατέ- 
xew αἱρετικοὺς καὶ ἐπιστομίζειν, καὶ 


ἐκκόπτειν αὐτῶν τὴν παρρησίαν, καὶ 
τὰς συνόδους, καὶ τὰς σπονδὰς διαλύ- 
ew κωλύει" ἀλλ᾽ ἀναιρεῖν καὶ κατα- 
σφάττειν. 

46 Ep. 61. [4]. 204.] ad Dulcitium, 
(t. 2. p. 765 d.) Non enim tu in eos 
jus οἶδα ullis legibus accepisti, aut 
imperialibus constitutis, quorum tibi 
injuncta est exsecutio, hoc precep- 
tum est, ut necentur. 

47 Cont. Lit. Petilian. 1. 2. c. 86. 
(t. 9. p. 271 e.).... Multas ad vos 
commonendos et corripiendos leges 
ipse constituit: nulla tamen lex re- 
gia vos jussit occidi, &c. 


14 The discipline ΧΥ͂Ι. ii. 


like ; and so perhaps some of the Donatists might suffer ; but 
that was not for their opinion barely. And even in that case, 
when it was the cause of the Church, the Catholic bishops com- 
monly interceded for them, that the death of the martyrs 
might not be revenged with blood.’ ‘ For no good men in the 
Catholic Church,’ says St. Austin 48, ‘ are pleased to have any 
one, although he be an heretic, prosecuted unto death.’ There- 
fore writing to one Donatus 49, a proconsul in Afric, he tells 
him, ‘ they desired that the terror of judges and laws might 
correct them, so as to preserve them from the punishment of 
eternal judgment, but not kill them; that discipline might not 
be neglected toward them, and yet that they might not undergo 
the punishment which they really deserved. Therefore punish 
their crimes in such manner, as that the authors may continue 
in being to repent of them. We beseech you, when any cause 
of the Church comes before you, although you know the 
Church to be assaulted and afflicted by their injurious villanies, 
yet then forget that you have the power of killing, and do not 
forget our petition. Let it not seem vile and contemptible in 
your eyes that we, who pray to God to correct them, intercede 
with you not to kill them. Let your prudence also consider 
this, that no one besides ecclesiastics is concerned to bring 
ecclesiastical causes before you: so that if you should resolve 
to put such criminals to death, who are accused of acting 
wickedly against the Church, you will deter us from bringing 


48 Cont. Crescon. 1. 3. c. 50. (t. 9. 
Ρ. 463 ἃ.) Nullis tamen bonis in 
Catholica hoc placet, si usque ad 
mortem in quenquam, licet heereti- 
cum, seviatur. 

49 Ep. 127. [al. 100.] (t. 2. p. 270 
b.) Unde ex occasione terribilium 
judicum ac legum ne in eterni ju- 
dicii peenas incidant, corrigi eos cu- 
pimus, non necari; nec disciplinam 
circa eos negligi volumus, nec sup- 
pliciis, quibus digni sunt, exerceri. 
Sic igitur eorum peccata compesce, 
ut sint, quos pceniteat peccasse. 
Quesumus igitur, ut cum ecclesiz 
causas audis, quamlibet nefariis in- 
juriis appetitam vel afflictam esse 
cognoveris, potestatem occidendi te 
habere obliviscaris, et petitionem 
nostram non obliviscaris. Non tibi 


vile sit, neque contemptibile, fili 
honorabiliter dilectissime, quod vos 
rogamus ne occidantur, pro quibus 
Dominum rogamus, ut corrigantur. 
Excepto etiam, quod a perpetuo 
proposito recedere non debemus vin- 
cendi in bono malum: illud quoque 
prudentia tua cogitet, quod causas 
ecclesiasticas insinuare vobis nemo 
preter ecclesiasticos curat. Proinde 
si occidendos in his sceleribus ho- 
mines putaveritis, deterrebitis nos, 
ne per operam nostram ad vestrum 
judicium aliquid tale perveniat : quo 
comperto illi in nostram perniciem 
licentiore audacia grassabuntur, ne- 
cessitate nobis impacta et indicta, 
ut etiam occidi ab eis eligamus, 
quam eos occidendos vestris judiciis 
ingeramus. 


) 4. 


of the Church. 75 


any more such actions before your tribunal: and that will 
make them more licentious and daringly bold to assault us, 
and work our ruin, when they know we are under such a ne- 
cessity to choose rather to be slain by them than bring them 
to be slain before your tribunals.’ He pleads after the same 
manner in another Letter to Marcellinus °°, the tribune, in be- 
half of some Donatists who confessed themselves guilty of 
murdering some of the Catholic clergy. ‘I beseech you,’ says 
he, ‘let their punishment be short of death, though their 
crimes be so great, both for our conscience’ sake, and to com- 
mend the lenity and meekness of the Catholic Church.’ A little 
after he intreats 5] him to intercede in his name to the pro- 
consul for them. ‘I hear it is in the power of the judge to 


_mollify the rigour of the law in giving sentence, and to use 


greater mildness in punishing than the laws command. But if 
he will not at my request consent to this, let him however 
grant me this fayour, to keep them in prison till I can send to 
the emperor, and obtain of his clemency that the passions or 
martyrdoms of the servants of God, which ought to be glorious 
in the Church, be not stained and defiled with the blood of 
their enemies.’ He urges the same argument in his next Letter 
to this Marcellinus 535 with greater earnestness, conjuring him 
by all that is sacred not to proceed to the utmost extremity 
against some Circumeellions and Donatist clergy, who were 


50 Ep. 158. [al. 139.] (t. 2. p. 
419 f.) Poena sane illorum, quamvis 
de tantis sceleribus confessorum, 
rogo te ut preter supplicium mortis 
sit, et propter conscientiam nostram, 
et propter Catholicam mansuetudi- 
nem commendandam. 

51 Tbid. (p. 420 ©.) Solet audire 
in potestate esse judicis mollire sen- 
tentiam, et mitius vindicare, quam 
jubeant leges. Si autem hoc literis 
meis ad hoc consenserit, hoc saltem 
prestet, ut in custodiam recipiantur 
atque hoc de clementia imperatorum 
impetrare curabimus, ne passiones 
servorum Dei, que debent esse in 
ecclesia gloriose, inimicorum san- 
guine dehonestentur. 

52 Ep. 159. [al. 133.] (ibid. p. 396 
b.) Unde mihi solicitudo maxima 
incussa est, ne forte sublimitas tua 
censeat eos tanta legum severitate 


plectendos, ut qualia fecerunt, talia 
patiantur. Ideoque his literis ob- 
testor fidem tuam, quam habes in 
Christo, per ipsius Domini Christi 
misericordiam, ut hoc nec facias, 
nec fieri omnino permittas. Quam- 
vis enim ab eorum interitu dissimu- 
lare possemus, qui non accusantibus 
nostris, sed illorum notoria, ad quos 
tuende publice pacis vigilantia per- 
tinebat, presentati videantur exa- 
mini; nolumus tamen passiones ser- 
vorum Dei, quasi vice talionis, pari- 
bus suppliciis vindicari. Non quo 
scelestis hominibus licentiam faci- 
norum prohibeamus auferri; sed hoc 
magis sufficere volumus; ut vivi et 
nulla corporis parte truncati, vel ab 
inquietudine insana ad sanitatis oti- 
um legum coércitione dirigantur, vel 
a malignis operibus alicui utili operi 
deputentur, 


76 The discipline XVI. ii. 


convicted of murdering two of his presbyters belonging to the 
Church of Hippo, after having first barbarously struck out an 
eye and cut off the finger of one of them. ‘Iam under the 
greatest concern imaginable,’ says he, ‘lest your highness 
should decree their punishment by the utmost severity of the 
law, to make them suffer the same things that they have done. 
Therefore I beseech you in these letters by the faith which 
you have in Christ, by the mercy of the Lord Jesus, that you 
neither do this, nor suffer it to be done. For though we might 
excuse ourselves from their death, forasmuch as it was not by 
any accusation of ours, but by the information of those who 
have the care of preserving the public peace, that they were 
brought in question; yet we would not have the passions of 
the servants of God be revenged with the like punishments, as 
it were by way of retaliation. Not that we are against de- 
priving wicked men of the liberty of committing such villainous 
actions, but because we rather think it sufficient, without either 
killing them or maiming them in any part of their body, to 
bring them by coercion of the laws, from these mad and turbu- 
lent practices, to live peaceably and soberly, or at least instead 
of these wicked works, to engage them in some useful employ- 
ment.’ He yet again more pathetically urges the same matter 
to one Apringius 583, another African judge, in these very affec- 
tionate and moving terms, pleading for mercy toward the same 
Circumeellions. ‘I am afraid lest they who have committed 
this murder should be sentenced to death by your power. 
That this may not be done, I that am a Christian beseech you 
the judge, I that am a bishop exhort you that are a Christian. 
I know the Apostle says, Ye bear not the sword in vain, but 
are ministers of God to execute wrath upon them that do eyil. 
But the cause of the State is one thing, and the cause of the 


53 Ep. 160. [al. 134.] (t. 2. p. 398 
a.) Hee [scil. horrenda facinora in 
fratres] cum comperissem illos fu- 
isse confessos, ideoque minime du- 
bitarem sub jura tue securis esse 
venturos, has ad tuam nobilitatem 
literas acceleravi, quibus deprecor, 
et per misericordiam Christi obse- 
cro, sic de tua majore atque certiore 
felicitate gaudeamus, ut eis paria 
non retribuantur; quanquam lapi- 


dis ictibus digitum precidere ocu- 
lumque convellere leges puniendo 
non possint, quod ista seviendo po- 
tuerunt. Unde securus sum de lis, 
qui hoc se fecisse confessi sunt, 
quod hance vicissitudinem non re- 
portabunt: sed ne vel ipsi, vel illi, 
quorum homicidium patefactum est, 
per tuz potestatis sententiam mulc- 
tentur, hoc timeo; hoc ne fiat, et 
Christianus judicem rogo, et Chris- 


4. 


_ clemency of the Church your mother. 


77 


Church another. The administration of that (the State) is to 
be carried on by terror, but the meekness of the Church is to 
be commended by her clemency.’ Then using several argu- 
ments, he adds a little after, ‘If nothing short of death could 
be imposed upon them, for our part we had rather they should 
be set at liberty, than that the passions of our brethren should 
be reyenged by shedding the blood of their enemies. But now 
since there is room both to show the gentleness of the Church, 
and also to restrain the audaciousness of the cruel; why should 
you not incline to the more provident side and milder sen- 
tence, which judges have liberty to do even in causes where 
the Church is not concerned? Therefore stand in awe with us 
of the judgment of God the Father, and demonstrate the 
For what you do, the 
Church does for whose sake you do it, and whose you are that 
do it. Therefore contend and vie in goodness with the evil. 
They by monstrous inhumanity and wickedness tear off the 
members from the living body: do you in mercy cause their 
members, which were exercised in such barbarous works, to 
remain whole and untouched in them, that they may hence- 


of the Church. 


tianum episcopus moneo. De vobis 
quidem dixisse Apostolum legimus, 
quod non sine causa gladium gera- 
tis, et ministri Dei sitis, vindices in 
eos, qui male agunt. Sed alia causa 
est provincie, alia est ecclesiz. Illius 
terribiliter gerenda est administratio, 
hujus clementer commendanda est 
mansuetudo. Si apud judicem non 
Christianum mihi sermo esset, ali- 
ter agerem: nec tamen etiam sic 
ecclesiz causam desererem ; et quan- 
tum admittere dignaretur, instarem, 
ne passiones servorum Dei Catholi- 
corum, que prodesse debent ad ex- 
empla patientiz, inimicorum suorum 
sanguine foedarentur; et si nollet 
acquiescere, inimico animo eum re- 
sistere suspicarer. Nunc vero, quan- 
do apud te res agitur, alia mihi ratio 
est, alia consultatio. Rectorem te 
quidem precelsz potestatis videmus, 
sed etiam filium Christiane pietatis 
agnoscimus. Subdatur sublimitas 
tua, subdatur fides tua, causam te- 
cum tracto communem: sed tu in 
ea potes, quod ego non possum. 


Confer nobiscum consilium, et por- 
rige auxilium. Diligenter actum est, 
ut inimici ecclesiz, qui solent vani- 
loquio seductionis solicitare animos 
imperitos, tanquam de persecutione 
gloriantes, quam se perpeti jactant, 
horrenda facinora sua in Catholicos 
clericos perpetrata faterentur, et suis 
verbis implicarentur. Legenda sunt 
Gesta ad sanandas animas, quas pes- 
tifera suasione venenaverunt. Num- 
quid placet tibi, ut ad finem Gesto- 
rum, si cruentum istorum suppli- 
cium continebit, legendo pervenire 
timeamus, ubi ponimus et ipsam 
conscientiam, ne malum pro malo, 
qui passi sunt, reddidisse videantur ὃ 
Si ergo nihil aliud constitueretur 
frenande malitiz perditorum, ex- 
trema fortasse necessitas, ut tales 
occiderentur, urgeret: quanquam, 
quod ad nos attinet, si nihil mitius 
eis fieri posset, mallemus eos liberos 
relaxari, quam passiones fratrum 
nostrorum fuso eorum sanguine vin- 
dicari: nunc vero, cum aliquid fieri 
potest, quo et mitis commendetur 


78 The discipline ΧΥΙ 


forth serve to work at some useful labour. They spared not 
the servants of God preaching reformation to them; but do you 
spare them that have been apprehended in their crimes, spare 
them that have been presented to your examination, spare 
them that have been convicted before you. They with the 
sword of unrighteousness shed Christian blood: do you with- 
hold even the lawful sword of judgment from being imbrued in 
their blood. They slew the minister of the Church, and 
thereby deprived him of the time of living: do you let the 
enemies of the Church live, and thereby grant them a time of 
repenting. Thus it becomes a Christian judge to act in the 
cause of the Church, at our request, at our admonition, at our 
intercession. Other men are wont to appeal from the mildness 
of the sentence, when their enemies are too favourably dealt 
with upon conviction: but we so love our enemies, that if we 
did not presume upon your Christian obedience, we should 
appeal from the severity of your sentence.’ 

After this manner St. Austin always pleads for favour to be 
shown to the Donatists, that they should not be prosecuted 
unto blood, in the cause of the Church, though it were for a 
capital crime, which in a civil case would infallibly have been 
punished with death without redemption. And certainly they, 
who were so tender of their enemies’ lives, when they were 
guilty of such flagrant crimes of violent outrages against the 
Church, could never think it lawful to sentence them to death 


for mere error in opinion. And therefore, though Honorius 


ecclesia, et immitium cohibeatur au- ductis, parce convictis. Illi impio 


dacia; cur non flectas in partem 
providentiorem lenioremque senten- 
tiam, quod licet judicibus facere, 
etiam non in causis ecclesiz? ‘Time 
ergo nobiscum judicium Dei Patris, 
et commenda mansuetudinem ma- 
tris. Cum enim tu facis, ecclesia 
facit, propter quam facis, et cujus 
filius facis. Contende bonitate cum 
malis. Illi scelere immani membra 
de corpore vivo avulserunt ; tu opere 
misericordi effice, ut illa, que ne- 
fandis operibus exercebant, alicui 
utili operi integra eorum membra 
deserviant. Illi non pepercerunt 
correctionem sibi predicantibus Dei 
servis : tu parce comprehensis, parce 


ferro fuderunt sanguinem Christia- 
num: tu ab eorum sanguine etiam 
juridicum gladium cohibe propter 
Christum. Ili ministro ecclesiz oc- 
ciso extorserunt spatium vivendi: 
tu inimicis ecclesiz viventibus re- 
laxa spatium peenitendi. Talem te 
oportet esse in causa ecclesie judi- 
cem Christianum, petentibus, mo- 
nentibus, intercedentibus nobis. So- 
lent homines, quando cum inimicis 
eorum convictis lenius agitur, a mi- 
tiore sententia provocare. Sed ini- 
micos nostros ita diligimus, ut, nisi 
de tua Christiana obedientia pre- 
sumamus, a tua severa sententia 
provocemus. 


of the Church. 79 


made some such laws, after St. Austin had written all this, yet 
we never find the Church approved them, or desired they 
should be put in execution: but, on the contrary, always stood 
firm to her own character, which we have heard before in the 
words of St. Austin; that is, that no good men in the Catholic 
Church were pleased with having heretics prosecuted unto 
death. Lesser punishments, they thought, might have their 
use, as means sometimes to bring them to consideration and 
repentance; but to take away their lives was to deprive them 
at once of all means and opportunity of repenting. Besides 
that, it was invidious to the Church, and rather a confirmation 
to heresy: for such as were slain were always reckoned mar- 
tyrs by their party. Thus the Donatists honoured their Cir- 


-eumeellions, which were slain in the encounter with Macarius, 


whom the Emperor Constans sent into Afric in a peaceable 
manner to scatter his gifts among them, and try to reduce 
them to unity by his kindness: they were the aggressors, and 
forced him to require aid of the governors to defend himself 
against their assaults; and yet those, that were slain in such 
necessary defence, were by them reputed martyrs, and the Ca- 
tholics were nicknamed Macarians, and these called the Maca- 
rian days, that is, in their language, days of persecution. And 
in answer to this, Optatus*! was forced to tell them, first, ‘ that 


Testamentum. Nulli dictum est, Aut 


δ4 L. 3. p. 62. (p.59.) Ab opera- 
riis [mempe, administris] unitatis 
multa quidem aspere gesta sunt, sed 
ea ad quid imputatis Lentio, Maca- 
rio, vel Taurino? Imputate majori- 
bus vestris; qui, sicut in Propheta 
scriptum est, ut vobis stupescerent 
dentes, ipsi uvas acidas comederunt. 
Illis primo, qui populum Dei divise- 
runt, et basilicas fecerunt non ne- 
cessarias. Deinde Donato Carthagi- 
nis, qui provocavit, ut unitas proxi- 
mo tempore fieri tentaretur. ‘Tertio 
Donato Bagaiensi, qui insanam col- 
legerat multitudinem, a qua ne Ma- 
carius violentiam pateretur, qui ad 
se, et ad ea, que ferebat tutanda, 
armati militis postulavit auxilium. 
Venerunt tunc cum pharetris armi- 
geri, repleta est unaquzque civitas 
vociferantium : nuntiata unitate, fu- 
iatis omnes. Nulli dictum est, Nega 
eum. Nulli dictum est, Incende 


thus pone, aut basilicas dirue. Istz 
enim res solent martyria generare. 
Renuntiata est unitas, sola fuerant 
hortamenta, ut Deus et Christus 
ejus, a populo in unum conveniente, 
pariter rogaretur. Nullus erat pri- 
mitus terror. Nemo viderat virgam : 
nemo custodiam: sola fuerant hor- 
tamenta. ‘Timuistis omnes, fugistis, 
trepidastis: ut pro certo de vobis 
dictum sit, quod in Psalmo scriptum 
est, Trepidaverunt, ubi non erat ti- 
mor. Fugerunt igitur omnes episcopi 
cum clericis suis, aliqui sunt mor- 
tui. Qui fortiores Ticraht capti 
longe relegati sunt. Et tamen ho- 
rum omnium nihil actum est cum 
voto nostro: nihil cum consilio, ni- 
hil cum conscientia, nihil cum opere. 
Sed gesta sunt omnia in dolore Dei, 
amare plorantis, &c. 


80 The discipline XVI.ag 


the fact was false: no violence was used toward them: there 
was no terror in the first design; they neither felt rod nor im- 
prisonment; but only exhortations to peace.’ And, secondly, 
‘if any violence was offered to them, they called it upon them- 
selves by their own insolency, obliging the emperor’s officer or 
almoner to defend himself against the rude insults of the Cir- 
cumcellions. Meanwhile, whatever happened was neither done 
by the desire, nor the counsel, nor the knowledge, nor the con- 
currence of the Church.’ A like instance happened in the case 
of the Priscillianists. Priscillian and some of his accomplices 
were, by Maximus the Emperor, at the instigation of Ithacius, 
a fierce and sanguinary bishop, sentenced unto death. This 
gave occasion to the followers of Priscillian to triumph in the 
sufferings of their leader. For, as Sulpicius Severus*+ observes, 
‘his death was so far from suppressing the heresy, that it gave 
confirmation to it, and made it spread further than otherwise it 
would have done: for his followers, who before honoured him 
as a saint, afterwards began to reverence him as a martyr.’ 
The thing was utterly displeasing to all good men, who were 
interested and attached to the Ithacian party: St. Martin, bi- 
shop of Tours, not only rebuked Ithacius for his over-zealous 
prosecution 55, but interceded with Maximus the Emperor to 
abstain from shedding their blood; telling him, it was enough 
to expel heretics from their churches, after they were once 
condemned by the episcopal judgment: and he obtained a pro- 
mise of Maximus, not to decree any thing against their lives. 
From which when he departed by the persuasion of others, 
and condemned them to death, St. Martin would never after 
be induced to communicate with those sanguinary men, save 
once in a small matter, of which he also repented, and conti- 
nued his aversion to them all his days, as the same historian "8 
informs us. 

Now from all this it is plain, that whatever favour or assist- 


54 Hist, Sacr. 1. 2. p. 120. (p. 452.) 
....Prisciliano occiso, non solum 
non repressa est heresis, que illo 
auctore proruperat, sed confirmata, 
latius propagata est. Namque secta- 
tores ejus, qui eum prius ut sanctum 
honoraverant, postea ut martyrem 
colere cceperunt. 

55 Ibid. p. 119. (p. 449.).... Non 


desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab 
accusatione desisteret: Maximum o- 
rare, et sanguine infelicium abstine- 
ret: satis superque sufficere, ut epi- 
scopali sententia heeretici judicati ec- 
clesiis pellerentur, &c. 

56 Dialog. 3. c.15- (pp. 575» Seq.) 
Veniam ad illud, &c. 


of the Church. 81 


4. 5: 


ance the ancient Church required of the civil magistrates, to 
back her discipline with, against heretics or other delinquents, 
she never desired them to unsheath the sword in her cause, or 
punish them with death; but always interposed in their behalf, 
that they might have the favour to live and repent, if ever any 
sanguinary laws, which were very rare, and noways encouraged 
or approved by the Church, were made against them. The 
discipline of fire and fagot, and inquisitions, and a thousand 
other tortures, which, under pretence of mercy, has spilt so 
much Christian blood, are inventions of later ages and more 
corrupt and degenerate times, when men had forgot the spirit 
of Christianity, and the character of our Blessed Lord, who 
“came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” 

5. It was no part of the ancient discipline to deprive men of The disci- 
their natural or civil rights. A master did not lose his natural emetic 
authority over his family, nor a parent over his children, by wear es 
losing the privileges of Christian communion. A judge did not natural or 
lose his office or charge in the state, by being cast out of the er ἀρὴν 
Church: for many such enjoyed their power and jurisdiction the ma- 
under Constantius and other heretical princes, notwithstanding eae 
the Church’s censure; though now it is the common doctrine °F allegi- 
of the Romish Church, as Cardinal Tolet 7 delivers it for the hin. το ον 
instruction of priests, that ‘an excommunicated person cannot 
exercise any act of jurisdiction without sin; nay, and if his ex- 
communication be made public, all his sentences are null and of 
no effect.’ This rule is designed against sovereign powers, to 
weaken the hands of princes by displacing their officers under 
pretence of excommunication. But the Church of Rome goes 
further, and puts it in the power of the Pope to lay princes 


under the highest excommunication or anathema, and then by 


57 Summa Casuum, s. Instruct. 
Sacerdot. 1. 1. c. 13. n. 5. (p. 35) ..- 
Excommunicatus non potest exer- 
cere actum jurisdictionis absque pec- 
cato: immo, si publica est excommu- 
nicatio facta, sententiz nulle sunt. 
Hinc est eum nec excommunicare, 
nec conferre beneficia, nec eligere, 
nec presentare, nec alia posse, que 
ad jurisdictionem pertinent, et, si 
facit, actus est nullus.—See Du 
Moulin’s Buckler of Faith. (p. 370.) 
But that which in this matter is 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


most pernicious is the common rule 
that an excommunicated person is 
suspended of his charge, and cannot 
exercise any act of jurisdiction, and 
that all the sentences which an ex- 
communicated judge pronounceth 
are of no force. By this rule the 
Pope pretendeth that he hath power 
to depose kings, &c.—Conf. De- 
cretal. Gregor. 1. 2. tit. 27. de Sen- 
tentia et Re Judic. c. 24. (Corp. Jur. 
Canon. t. 2. p. go2. 23.) Vos autem 
interim agnoscatis, &c. 


G 


82 Administration of XVI. ii. 


virtue of that to depose them from their thrones, and absolve 
subjects from their allegiance, and dispose of their kingdoms to 
whom they think fit. Of which practice there is not the least 
footstep in all the discipline of the primitive Church for many 
ages, nor scarce any unquestionable instance of such an at- 
tempt before the time of Pope Hildebrand, or Gregory the 
Seventh, (from whom this doctrine is called the Hildebrandine 
doctrine,) as some of their own historians ingenuously confess. 
‘I have read over and over again,’ says Otho [or Otto] Frisin- 
gensis 58, a noble German bishop, ‘ the records of the Roman 
kings and emperors, and I nowhere find that any of them be- 
fore this was excommunicated, or deprived of his kingdom by 
the bishop of Rome; unless any one think fit to call that ana- 
thematizing, when Philip, the Emperor, was placed among the 
penitents for a little time by the Roman bishop; or when The- 
odosius, for his cruel slaughter of the Thessalonians, was de- 
barred from entering the church by St. Ambrose.’ 

There is no question but that princes anciently were some- 
times denied the communion, as St. Ambrose denied Theodo- 
slus: but as that was not properly putting them under the 
great excommunication, or anathema, so much less was it de- 
priving them of their legal power and dominion. Constantius 
was an heretic, and Julian an apostate; Valens and Valenti- 
nian the Younger were professed Arians; Anastasius and many 
others, abettors and propugners of several heresies; yet the 
Church never pretended to withdraw her allegiance from them, 
or depose them. Neither was this for want of power, as Bel- 
larmin and others commonly pretend, but for want of just au- 
thority and right: for the Church in those days knew nothing 
either of a direct or indirect power, that the Pope or any other 
bishop had over the temporal rights of prices; but professed 
obedience to them, whether they were heathens or heretics, in 
the Church or out of the Church, persecutors or friends; as 
the reader, that pleases, may see more fully demonstrated in 


58 L. 6. c. 35. (p.127.) Lego et re- 
lego Romanorum regum et impera- 
torum gesta, et nusquam invenio 
quenquam eorum ante hunc [ Hen- 
ricum IV.] a Romano pontifice ex- 
communicatum, vel regno priva- 
tum, nisi quis forte pro anathemate 


habendum ducat, quod Philippus ad 
breve tempus a Romano episcopo 
inter peenitentes collocatus, et The- 
odosius a Beato Ambrosio propter 
cruentam czedem ἃ liminibus eccle- 
siz sequestratus sit. 


wai «+. 


5, 6. the discipline. 83 


the elaborate work of our learned Bishop Buckeridge*, in de- 
fence of Barclay against Bellarmin, concerning the pretended 
power of the Pope in temporals, and his usurpation of a right 
to dethrone princes. Where, among many other unanswerable 
arguments, he confirms the forementioned observation of Otho 
[or Otto] Frisingensis, that Hildebrand was the first that put 
this wicked doctrine in practice against the Emperor Henry 
the Fourth, from the concurrent testimony of almost twenty 
writers of the Roman communion. 

I shall pursue this matter no further here, having said what 
is sufficient to confirm this remark about the discipline of the 
Church, that it deprived no man of his natural or civil rights, 
much less gave any one authority to dethrone princes, or ab- 
solve subjects from their allegiance, or dispose of their king- 
doms, under pretence of setting up the spiritual sword above 
the temporal. 

6. But the discipline of the Church, being a mere spiritual But con- 
power, was confined to these following acts. First, the admo- ree tc, 
nition of the offender; which was sitantaly repeated once or tion of the 
twice commonly, before they proceeded to greater severities, © er 
according to that of the Apostle, “A man that is an heretic, 
after the first and second admonition reject.” [Tit. 3, 10.] After 
this manner St. Ambrose® represents their proceedings: ‘A 
putrefied member of the body is never cut off but with grief: 
we try a long time whether it cannot be healed with medicines; 
if not, then a good physician cuts it off. Such is the affection 
of a good bishop: he is very desirous first to heal the infirm, 
to put a stop to growing ulcers, to burn and sear a little, and 
not cut off; at last he cuts off with grief what cannot be 
healed.’ So Prosper®! says: ‘They that being long endured, 


59 Al. Johannes Roffensis, De Po- 
testate Pape in Rebus Temporali- 
bus, sive in Reyibus Deponendis u- 
surpata, adversus Cardinalem Bel- 
larminum. Lond. 1614. 1. 2. ¢. 10. 
(pp- 385, seqq.) Tit. Henricus IV. 
primus a Gregorio VII. depositus est, 
idque injuste juxta sententiam Otho- 
nis Frisingensis. 

© De Offic. 1. 2. c. 27. (t. 2. p. 
102 c, n. 135.) ims dolore ampu- 
tatur etiam que putruit pars corpo- 


ris, et diu tractatur si potest sanari 
medicamentis: si non potest, tunc 
a medico bono abscinditur. Sic epi- 
scopi affectus boni est, ut oportet 
[4]. optet] sanare infirmos, serpen- 
tia auferre ulcera, adurere aliqua, 
non abscindere: postremo, quod sa- 
nari non potest, cum dolore abscin- 
dere. 

61 De Vit. Contemplat. 1. 2. c. 7. 
(append. p. 30. c.g.) ....- Qui, diu 
portati et salubriter objurgati, corrigi 


G 2 


84 Administration of XVI. i. 


and often kindly admonished, will not be corrected, are cut off 
as putrefied members with the sword of excommunication.’ 
And thus Synesius® represents his own proceedings against 
Andronicus, the tyrannical governor of Ptolemais, who made 
use of his power only to oppress and vex the people. He first 
tried whether admonitions and remonstrances against his eru- 
elty would work upon him: but when they proved ineffectual, 
and the man grew more outrageous and incorrigible, breaking 
out into that blasphemous expression, ‘ that in vain did any man 
hope for succour from the Church, and that no man should 
escape his hands, although he laid hold of the foot of Christ 
himself :’ after this, says Synesius®, ‘he was no longer to be 
admonished, but cut off as an incurable member, for fear the 
sound parts should be corrupted by his society and contagion;’ 
and so he proceeded to pronounce that formal excommunica- 
tion against him, which we shall hear more of by and by, [in 
the eighth section of this chapter.] 


Secondly, 7. Some call this the προθεσμία, the warning®, or time 
In suspen- - = via ; 65 

sion from given them to repent, which was limited sometimes® to the 
the com- space of ten days: after which, if they continued obstinate and 
munion *,° 

called the Yefractory, the Church proceeded to greater severities, to deny 
lesser ex- them communion by the lesser or greater excommunication. 
communti- . . 

cation. The lesser excommunication was commonly called ἀφορισμὸς, 


separation or suspension ; and it consisted in excluding men 


noluerint, tanquam putres corporis 
partes debent ferro excommunica- 
tionis abscindi. 

62 Ep. 57. (pp- 191, seqq.) See the 
passage generally. 

63 Ep. 58. p. 199. (p. 202 d. 7.) 
.++++ Οὐκέτε νουθετέος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, 
ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ μέλος ἀνιάτως ἔχον, ἀπο- 
κοπτέος, ἵνα μὴ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ καὶ τὸ ὑ- 
γιαῖνον συμφθείρηται. 

64 Vid. Habert. Archierat. ex Ep. 
Johan. Antioch. ad Nestor. (ad Cen- 
sur. Pontif. observ. 2. p. 739.) Tem- 
pus illud προθεσμία dicitur. Con- 
querebatur ergo Nestorius angustum 
esse ad deliberandum tempus: at 
Johannes Antiochenus Epistola ad 
Nestorium apposite reponit: Kai yap 
εἰ καὶ προθεσμίαν στενωτάτην τοῖς 
γράμμασιν ἐνέθηκε ὁ κύριός μου, ὁ 
θεοφιλέστατος Κελεστῖνος ὁ ἐπίσκο- 
πος, δέκα μόναις ἡμέραις περιορίσας 


τὴν ἀπόκρισιν" ἀλλ᾽ ἔξεστιν ἔργον αὐ- 
τὸ ποιῆσαι καὶ ἡμέρας μόνης μιᾶς, 
τάχα δὲ καὶ ὡρῶν ὀλίγων. [Vid. C. 
Ephes. part. 1. c.25. n.3. CC. Ἐ 5. 
p- 390 c. Ep. ] 

65 Vid. Celestin. Ep. ad Nestor. 
(CC. t.3. p.362 6.) Φανερῶς τοίνυν 
ἴσθι, ταύτην ἡμῶν εἶναι τὴν ἀπόφασιν, 
ὡς ἐὰν μὴ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἡμῶν ταῦτα KnpvEns, ἅπερ καὶ ἡ Ῥω- 
μαίων, καὶ ἡ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων, καὶ πᾶσα 
ἡ Καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία κατέχει, ὡς καὶ 
ἡ ἁγία ἡ κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην Κωνσταν- 
τινούπολιν ἐκκλησία ἕως σου κάλλιστα 
κατέσχε" καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἄπιστον και- 
νότητα, ἥτις ἐπιχειρεῖ χωρίζειν, ἅπερ 
συνάπτει ἡ ἁγία Τραφὴ. ἐντὸς δεκάτης 
ἡμέρας, ἀριθμουμένης ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας 
ταύτης τῆς ὑπομνήσεως, φανερᾷ καὶ 
ἐγγράφῳ ὁμολογίᾳ ἀθετήσῃς, ἀπὸ 
πάσης κοινωνίας Καθολικῆς ἐκβέβλη- 
σαι. 


§7. 


the discipline. 85 


from the participation of the eucharist, and prayers of the 
faithful; but did not expel them the church, for still they 
might stay to hear the psalmody, and reading of the Serip- 
tures, and the sermon, and the prayers of the catechumens and 
the penitents, and then depart with them, when that first ser- 
vice, called the service of the catechumens, was ended. Theo- 
doret®® expressly distinguishes this lesser excommunication 
from the greater, when speaking of some, who had lapsed into 
sin rather by infirmity than maliciousness, ‘ he says, they should 
be debarred from partaking of the holy mysteries, but not de- 
barred from the prayers or service of the catechumens.’ And 
thus we are to understand that canon of Gregory Thauma- 
turgus®”7, which orders ‘such to be excommunicated from 


_ prayers as detained the goods of their brethren, (which they 


had lost in the invasion of the barbarians,) under pretence of 
having found them.’ Prayers there means the prayers of the 
faithful at the altar, or the communion-service, from which 
they were suspended, and not the prayers of the catechumens, 
at which they might be present, notwithstanding their suspen- 
sion from the other. So that this was a lower degree of pu- 
nishment, excluding them in part only from the society of the 
faithful; that is, from the common prayers and the eucharist, 
but not totally expelling them the Church. And it was com- 
monly inflicted for lesser crimes; or if for greater, upon such 
sinners only as showed immediately a ready disposition to 
submit to the laws of repentance: there being something in 
their forwardness to entitle them to a more favourable sen- 
tence. 

The Council of Eliberis®* orders this sort of abstention from 
the eucharist for three weeks to be inflicted on those, who, 


66 Ep. 77. ad Eulalium, t. 3. p. 
947. (t. 4. part. 2. p.1130.)....Ka- 
λυέσθωσαν μὲν τῆς μεταλήψεως τῶν 
ἱερῶν μυστηρίων, μὴ κωλυέσθωσαν δὲ 
τῆς τῶν κατηχουμένων εὐχῆς, μηδὲ τῆς 
τῶν θείων Τραφῶν ἀκροάσεως, μηδὲ 
τῆς τῶν διδασκάλων παραινέσεως. 

67 Ep. Canonic. c. 5. ap. Oper. p. 
40 a. (CC. t. 1. p. 840 ἃ.) " Αλλοι δὲ 
ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαπατῶσιν, ἀντὶ τῶν ἰδίων 
τῶν ἀπολλυμένων, ἃ εὗρον ἀλλότρια 
κατέχοντες, ... o's δεῖ ἐκκηρύξαι τῶν 


evyav.—Conf, C. Llerdens. c. 4. (t. 
4. p. 1611 e.) De his, qui se incesta 
pollutione commaculant, placuit, ut, 
quousque in ipso detestando et illi- 
cito carnis contubernio perseverant, 
usque ad missam tantum catechu- 
menorum in ecclesia admittantur. 

68 C, 21. (t.1. p.973 b.) Si quis 
in civitate positus, tres Dominicas ad 
ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto [al. 
pauco] tempore abstineat, ut cor- 
reptus esse videatur. 


86 Administration of XVI. ἢ} 
without any necessary avocation, neglected to come to church 
for three Lord’s-days together. And in another canon 69 sus- 
pends such women for a year as were guilty of ante-nuptial 
fornication; ordering them to be received again without public 
penance, provided they were married to the persons by whom 
they were defiled, living chastely with them for the future. 
Albaspiny7° here rightly observes, that this was only depriving 
them of the eucharist, for they were neither expelled the 
church, nor obliged to go through any of the stages of public 
penance, but might pray with the catechumens, and with the 
faithful also; only they were not allowed to participate of the 
holy mysteries till their term was expired, and therein their 
punishment consisted. St. Basil’s Canons?! speak of the same 
punishment for trigamists, or persons that were married a 
third time. They were to be under penance for five years; 
half the time to be hearers only, and half the time co-standers: 
that is, they might stay to hear the prayers of the faithful, 
but not partake of the communion with them. So that here 
were two degrees of this lesser excommunication ; the one ex- 
cluding them only from the eucharist, but allowing them to 
pray with the faithful; and the other excluding them from the 
prayers of the faithful, and only allowing them to pray with 


69 (Ὁ. 14. (ibid. p.972 c.) Virgines, 


simo primo colligitur? Levia que- 
que virginitatem suam non custodi- 


dam crimina hac peena mulctaban- 


erint, si eosdem, qui eas violaverint, 
duxerint et tenuerint [maritos], eo 
quod solas nuptias violaverint, post 
annum sine peenitentia reconciliari 
debebunt. 

70 In loc. (ibid. 992 e.) Sine peni- 
tentia. Non hoc ita accipiendum, 
quasi velint eas absque sacramento 
peenitentiz absolvendas esse, aut 
statuant ejusmodi peccatum non esse 
aliqua pcena coércendum, vel deni- 
gue eis non esse dolendum de stu- 
pro: sed penitentia hoc loco intelli- 
guntur poene et erumne, que in 
gradibus pcenitentiz palam et pub- 
lice caperentur, que, cum pudorem 
aliquem sugillarent, non erant ejus- 
modi virginibus infligende. Quid 
autem sit, post annum sine peniten- 
tia reconciliari, quodve genus pe- 
narum ex hoc canone, et ex vige- 


tur, que in eo versaretur, ut ab 
eucharistia arcerentur, ... mihique 
persuasum est, eos qui levi illa ani- 
madversione castigabantur, non ali- 
ter orasse aut stetisse in ecclesia, 
neque aliter habitos, quam subsis- 
tentes, et omnibus rebus divinis et 
humanis participasse cum ceteris 
fidelibus, preeterquam eucharistiz. 

71 C.4. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 188. s. 
Canonic. Prim.] (CC. t.2. p. 1721¢.) 
Συνήθειαν δὲ κατελάβομεν, ἐπὶ τῶν 
τριγάμων πενταετίας ᾿ἀφορισμόν. ass 
Δεῖ δὲ μὴ πάντη αὐτοὺς “ἀπείργειν τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας" ἀλλ᾽ ἀκροάσεως αὐτοὺς 
ἀξιοῦν ἐ εν δύο aro. ἔτεσιν ἢ τρισί καὶ 
μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιτρέπειν συστήκειν. μὲν, 
τῆς δὲ κοινωνίας τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀ ἀπέχεσ- 
θαι, καὶ οὕτως ἐπιδειξαμένους καρπόν 
τινα μετανοίας ἀποκαθιστᾷν τῷ τόπῳ 
τῆς κοινωνίας. 


; 


7, 8. 


| any assembly of the Church. 


the discipline. 87 


the catechumens; but neither of them expelling such delin- 
quents totally from the communion of the Church. 

8. The greater excommunication was, when men were totally 
expelled the Church, and separated from all communion in 
holy offices with her. Whence in the ancient canons it is dis- 
tinguished by the names of παντελὴς ἀφορισμὸς, the total sepa- 
ration, and anathema, the curse: it being the greatest curse 
that could be laid upon man. It is frequently also signified 
by the several terms and phrases of, ἀπείργεσθαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 
ἀποκλείεσθαι and ῥίπτεσθαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐκτὸς εἶναι, ἐκκερύττεσ- 
θαι τῆς συνόδου, ἀπεῖρξαι τῆς ἀκροάσεως, and the like. All which 
denote men’s being wholly cast out of the Church by the most 
formal excommunication, and debarred not only from the 
eucharist, but from the prayers, and hearing the Scriptures in 
This form is elegantly expressed 
by Synesius 7? with all the appendages and consequents of it, 
in his excommunication of Andronicus, mentioned before, [at 
the end of the sixth section preceding,] in these words: ‘ Now 
that the man is no longer to be admonished, but cut off as an 
incurable member, the Church of Ptolemais makes this decla- 
ration or injunction to all her sister Churches throughout the 
world. Let no church of God be open to Andronicus and his 
accomplices; to Thoas and his accomplices; but let every 
sacred temple and sanctuary be shut against them. The Devil 
has no part in Paradise; though he privily creep in, he is 
driven out again. I therefore admonish bot private men and 
magistrates neither to receive them under their roof, nor to 
their table; and priests more especially, that they neither con- 
verse with them living, nor attend their funerals when dead. 
And if any one despise this Church, as being only a small city, 


72 Vid. Synes. Ep. 58. Ρ- 199. (p- 
203 a. 5. ) ᾿Ανδρονίκῳ, καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ, 
μηδὲν ἀνοιγνύσϑω τέμενος τοῦ 
Gti dxas αὐταῖς ἱερὸς ἀποκεκλείσθω, 
καὶ σηκὸς καὶ περίβολος. Οὐκ ἔστι 
τῷ Διαβόλῳ μέρος ἐν ἸΤαραδείσῳ᾽" ὃς, 
κἂν λάθῃ διαδὺς, ἐξελαύνεται. Πα- 
ραινῶ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἰδιώτῃ παντὶ καὶ 
ἄρχοντι, μήτε ὁμορόφιον αὐτῷ, μήτε 
ὁμοτράπεζον γίνεσθαι" ἱερεῦσι δὲ δια- 
φερόντως, οἵ μήτε ζῶντας αὐτοὺς προσ- 
ἐροῦσι, μήτε τελευτήσαντας συμπρο- 
πέμψουσιν. Ei δέ τις ὡς μικροπολῖ- 


τιν ἀποσκυβαλίσει τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ 

δέξεται τοὺς ᾿ἀποκηρύκτους αὐτῆς, ὡς 
οὐκ ἀνάγκη τῇ πένητι πείθεσθαι: ἴστω 
σχίσας τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἣ ἣν μίαν ὁ Χρι- 
στὸς εἶναι βούλεται. Ὃ δὲ τοιοῦτος, 
εἴτε Λευίτης ἐστὶν, εἴτε πρεσβύτερος, 
εἴτε ἐπίσκοπος, παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐν ᾿Ανδρονί- 
κου μοίρᾳ τετάξεται, καὶ οὔτε ἐμβα- 
λοῦμεν αὐτῷ δεξιὰν, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς 
αὐτῆς ποτε ᾿σιτησόμεθα' πολλοῦ δὴ 
δεήσομεν κοινωνῆσαι τῆς ἀπορρήτου 
τελετῆς τοῖς ἐθελήσασιν ἔχειν μερίδα 
μετὰ ᾿Ανδρονίκου καὶ Θόαντος, 


Thirdly, In 
expulsion 
from the 
Church, 
called the 
greater ex- 
communi- 
cation, total 
separation, 
anathema, 
and the like. 


88 Administration of XVI. ii. 


and receive those that are excommunicated by her, as if there 
was no necessity of observing the rules of a poor Church, 
let them know that they divide the Church by schism, which 
Christ would have to be one. And whoever does so, whether 
he be Levite, presbyter, or bishop, shall be ranked in the 
same class with Andronicus: we will neither give them the 
right hand of fellowship, nor eat at the same table with them ; 
and much less will we communicate in the sacred mysteries 
with them, who choose to have part with Andronicus and 
Thoas.’ 

I have recited this whole form, not only because it is curiously 
drawn up by an excellent pen, but also because it opens the 
way into the further knowledge of the discipline of the Church. 
For here we may observe four things as concomitants, or im- 
mediate consequents of this greater excommunication. 1. That 
casting out of the Church is represented under the image of 
casting out of Paradise, and paralleled with it in the form of 
excommunication. 2. That as soon as any one was struck out 
of the list of his own Church notice was given thereof to the 
neighbouring Churches, and sometimes to the Churches over 
all the world, that all Churches might confirm and ratify this 
act of discipline, by refusing to admit such an one to their 
communion. 3. Forasmuch as that he, who was legally ex- 
communicated in one Church, was by the laws of Catholic 
unity, and rules of right discipline, to be held excommunicate 
in all Churches, till he had given just and reasonable satisfac- 
tion: and for any Church to receive such an one into her com- 
munion was so great an offence as to be thought to deserve the 
same punishment with the offending criminal. 4. That when 
men were thus excommunicated, they were not only excluded 
from communion in sacred things, but shunned and avoided 
in civil conversation as dangerous and infected persons. All 
these things are evident from this single passage of Synesius ; 
but because the knowledge of the manner of exercising eccle- 
siastical disciple depends upon the truth of them, it will 
not be amiss a little more distinctly to explain and confirm 
them. 

First then, | observe, that casting out of the Church is here 
represented under the image of Paradise, and paralleled with 
it in the form of excommunication. And so it is said by St. 


the discipline. 89 


8, 9. 


Jerom7!, ‘ that sinners transgress the covenant of God in the 
Church as Adam did in Paradise: and show themselves fol- 
lowers of their first father, that they may be cast out of the 
Church, as he was out of Paradise.’ In like manner St. 
Austin??, speaking of Adam’s expulsion out of Paradise, says, 
‘it was a sort of excommunication: as now in our Paradise, 
that is, the Church, men by ecclesiastical discipline are removed 
from the visible sacraments of the altar... And Epiphanius7* 
notes the same custom, as more nicely observed by the sect of 
the Adamians: for ‘if any one was taken in a crime, they 
would not suffer him to come into their assembly, but called 
him Adam, the eater of the forbidden fruit, and adjudged him 
to be expelled, as out of Paradise, that is, their Church.’ So 
that this was a common form or phrase both in the discipline 
of heretics and of the Church. 
9. Secondly, I observe, that as soon as any one was in this This sort of 
manner excommunicated by any Church, notice thereof was hication 


nication 
commonly given to other Churches, and sometimes by circular was com- 


letters to all eminent Churches over all the world, that all renege ἢ 
Churches might confirm and ratify this act of discipline, by oe 
; i . urches. 

refusing to admit such an one to their communion. To this 

purpose we find a canon in the first Council of Toledo7*, ‘ that 

if any powerful man oppress and spoil a clerk, or a poor man, 

or one of a religious life, and a bishop summon him before him 

to have a trial, and he refuses to obey the summons; in that 

ease he shall give notice by letter to all the bishops of the 


province, and to as many as possibly he can, that such an one 


71 In Hos. c. 6. (t. 6. p. 65 c.) 


νέσθαι, οὐκέτι τοῦτον συνάγουσι. Φά- 
Preevaricati sunt enim pactum Dei 


‘ > ‘ A ? A | 
σκουσι yap αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ τὸν 


in ecclesia, sicut Adam preevaricatus 
est in Paradiso: et imitatores se an- 
tiqui parentis ostendunt, ut quomodo 
ille de Paradiso, sic et isti ejiciantur 
de ecclesia. 

72 De Gen. ad Lit. l. 11. c. 40. 
a. p. 273. (€.3. part.1. p.294 f.) 
..-Alienandus inde utique erat, tan- 
quam excommunicatus. Sicut etiam 
in hoc Paradiso, id est, ecclesia, so- 
lent a sacramentis altaris visibilibus 
homines disciplina ecclesiastica re- 
moveri. 

73 Her. 52. Adamian. ἢ. 2. (t. 1. 
P- 459 Cc.) Ei δὲ δόξειε, τινὰ, ὡς καὶ 
τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ἐν παραπτώματι γε- 


βεβρωκότα ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, καὶ κρί- 
νουσιν ἐξεῶσθαι, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Παραδεί- 
σου τουτέστι τῆς αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίας. 

74 C. 11. (t. 2. Ρ. 1225 ὃ.) Si quis 
de potentibus clericum, aut quemli- 
bet pauperem, [al. pauperiorem, | aut 
religiosum expoliaverit, et man- 
daverit eum ad se venire episcopus 
ut audiatur, et is [4]. ad ipsum epi- 
scopus ut eum audiat, et si} con- 
tempserit, invicem mox scripta per- 
currant per omnes provincie episco- 
pos, et quoscunque adire potuerint, 
ut excommunicatus habeatur ipse, 
donec obediat et reddat aliena. 


90 Administration of XVL. ii. 


be held excommunicate, till he obediently submits, and makes 
restitution.’ This was usually most punctually observed in the 
case of heretics and their condemnation. For so the histo- 
rians7> tell us, when Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had 
deposed and anathematized Arius, he sent his circular letters 
to all Churches, giving an account of his proceedings against 
him. And this was the constant practice in all Councils, to 
send about their synodical letters, to signify what heretics they 
condemned, that all Churches might be apprised of their 
errors, and refuse their communion to the authors of them. 
And thus every bishop was careful to inform his brethren and 
neighbouring Churches whenever he had occasion to use this 
severe punishment against any offender. Thus St. Austin 
having deposed Victorinus, an aged subdeacon, and expelled 
him the Church, because he was found hypocritically in private 
to have propagated the abominable heresies of the Manichees, 
writes to Deuterius7®, one of his fellow bishops, and tells him, 
‘he did not think it sufficient to have used this congruous 
ecclesiastical severity against him, unless he also gave intima- 
tion of what he had done against him, that every one being 
well apprised might know how to be aware of him.’ 

10. Then, thirdly, whoever was thus excommunicated in 
iar hg one Church was held excommunicate in all Churches. For 
nicated in such was the perfect harmony and agreement of the Catholic 
ae it Church, that every Church was ready to ratify and confirm 
excommu- all acts of discipline exercised upon delinquents in any other 
nicate in all : : 
Churches, Church: so that he who was legally excommunicated in one 

Church, was by the laws of Catholic unity and rules of right 
discipline held excommunicate in all Churches; and no Church 
could or would receive him into communion, before he had 
given satisfaction to the Church whereof he was a member: 


After which 


75"Socrat. lia. 6, δ. (v, ΞΡ, 10, 
17.) Συνέδριον πολλῶν ἐπισκόπων κα- 
θίσας, τὸν μὲν ΓΑρειον καὶ τοὺς ἀποδε- 
χομένους τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καθαιρεῖ" 
γράφει δὲ τοῖς κατὰ πόλιν τοιάδε, 
x. t.A.—Theodoret. 1. 1. c. 4. (ν. 3. 
p-9. 13.)... Περὶ ὧν ἀναγκαῖον ἦν 
μοι τῷ πάσχοντι δηλῶσαι τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ 
εὐλαβείᾳ, κ. τ.λ. 

76 Ep. 74. [al. 236.] (t. 2. p. 
849 c.) Rogavit me quidam, postea- 
quam se Manicheorum auditorem 


esse confessus est, ut eum in viam 
veritatis doctrine Catholic revo- 
carem. Sed, fateor, ejus fictio- 
nem sub clerici specie vehementer 
exhorrui, eumque coercitum pellen- 
dum de civitate curavi. Nee mihi 
hoc satis fuit, nisi et tuz sanctitati 
eum meis literis intimarem, ut, a cle- 
ricorum gradu congrue ecclesiastica 
severitate dejectus, cavendus omni- 
bus innotescat. 


LO. 


91 


and to do otherwise. was to incur the same penalty that was 
inflicted upon the offending party. I have given some evidence 
of this before77, in speaking of the unity of the Church: and 
here I shall a little further confirm it, to show the exactness of 
the ancient Church in the administration of discipline, both 
from her laws and practice. Her laws are altogether uniform 
upon this point, and run universally in this tenour, that no 
person excommunicated in one Church, should be received in 
another, except it were by the authority of a legal synod, to 
which there lay a just appeal, and which was allowed to judge 
in the case. 

There are two canons among those called Apostolical to this 
purpose. ‘If any presbyter7® or deacon is suspended from 
communion by his bishop, he shall not be received by any 
other but the bishop that suspended him, except in case the 
bishop chance to die that suspended him.’ And again79, ‘If 
any clergyman or layman, who is cast out of the Church, be 
received in another city without commendatory letters, both he 
that received him, and he that is so received, shall be cast out 
of communion.’ The Council of Nice is supposed to refer to 
these ancient canons, when®® it says, ‘The rule shall stand 
good according to the canon, which says, he that is cast out by 
one bishop shall not be received by another: but synods shall 
be held twice a year to examine whether any one person was 
excommunicated unjustly by the hasty passion, or contention, 


the discipline. 


7 Ch. 1.8. 11. p. 44. 


78 C. 32. [al. 33. et juxt. Labb. 
31.} (Cotel. [c. 25.} V. I. p. 441.) 
Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος ὑπὸ 
ἐπισκόπου γένηται ἐν ἀφορισμῷ, τοῦ- 
τον μὴ ἐξεῖναι παρ᾽ ἑτέρου δεχθῆναι, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ παρὰ τοῦ ἀφορίσαντος αὐτὸν, 
εἰ μὴ ἂν κατὰ “συγκυρίαν τελευτήσῃ 6 
ἀφορίσας αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπος. 

79 C. 13. [juxt. Labb. 28.] (Cotel. 
[c. 10.] ibid. p. 438.) Et τις κληρι- 
κὸς, ἢ λαϊκὸς, ἀφωρισμένος, ἤτοι 
ἄδεκτος, ἀπελθὼν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει 
δεχθῇ ἄνευ γραμμάτων συστατικῶν, 
ἀφοριζέσθωσαν οἱ δεξάμενοι καὶ ὁ 
ϑιχθείς. 

30 C. Be (t. 2. p. 237 4.) Περὶ τῶν 
ἀκοινωνήτων γινομένων, εἴτε τῶν ἐν 
τῶ κλήρῳ, εἴτε τῶν ἐν τῷ λαϊκῷ τάγ- 
ματι, ὑπὸ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν 


ἐπισκόπων, κρατείτω ἡ “γνώμη κατὰ 
τὸν κανόνα, τοὺς ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀποβλη- 
θέντας ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων. μὴ προσίεσθαι" 
ἐξεταζέσθω δὲ, μὴ μικροψυχίᾳ, ἢ 
φιλονεικίᾳ, ἤ τινι τοιαύτῃ ἀηδίᾳ τοῦ 
ἐπισκόπου ἀποσυνάγωγοι γεγένηνται" 
Ἵνα οὖν τοῦτο τὴν πρέπουσαν ἐξέτα- 
σιν λαμβάνῃ, καλῶς ἔχειν ἔδοξεν, 
ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρ- 
χίαν δὶς τοῦ ἔτους συνόδους γίνεσθαι" 
o a , a > ἥ a 
iva κοινῇ πάντων τῶν ἐπισκύπων τῆς 
ἐπαρχίας ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένων, 
τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητήματα ἐξετάζοιτο᾽ καὶ 
οὕτως οἱ ὁμολογουμένως. προσκεκρου- 
κότες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ κατὰ λόγον ἀκοι- 
νώνητοι παρὰ πάντων εἶναι δόκωσι, 
μέχρις ἂν τῷ κοινῷ ἢ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ 
δόξῃ, τὴν φιλανθρωποτέραν περὶ αὐ- 
τῶν ἐκθέσθαι ψῆφον. 


92 XVI. ii. 


Administration of 


or any such irregular commotion of his bishop; and if it ap- 
pear that he was excommunicated with reason, he shall be held 
excommunicate by all other bishops, till the synod thinks fit to 
show him favour.’ The Council of Antioch*! not long after re- 
newed this canon: ‘If any one is excommunicated by his own 
bishop, he ‘shall not be received by any other but the bishop 
that excommunicated him, unless upon appeal to the synod he 
give satisfaction, and receive another sentence from the synod.’ 
The learned reader may find. many other canons to the same 
purpose in the Councils of Eliberis*?, and Sardica 83, and Mi- 
levis8*, and the first of Arles*5, and Turin 56, and Saragossa‘, 
which all run in the same tenour, and need not here be re- 
peated. It was by this rule and principle that Cornelius re- 
fused to admit Felicissimus to communion at Rome§*, because 


81 C. 6. (ibid. p- 564 d. ) Et τις 
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου ἀκοινώνητος 
γέγονεν, μὴ πρότερον αὐτὸν παρ᾽ ἐτέ- 
pov δεχθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ παρα- 
δεχθείη τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου, ἢ συνό- 
δου γενομένης ἀπαντήσας ἀπολογήσε- 
ται, πείσας τε τὴν σύνοδον καταδέ- 
ἕοιτο ἑτέραν ἀπόφασιν. 

82 C. 53. (t.1. p. 976 c.) Placuit 
cunctis, ut ab eo episcopo quis ac- 
cipiat communionem, a quo absten- 
tus in crimine aliquo fuerit. Quod 
si alius episcopus preesumpserit eum 
admittere, illo adhuc minime faci- 
ente, vel consentiente, a quo fuerat 
communione privatus, sciat se hu- 
jusmodi causas inter fratres cum 
status sui periculo prestaturum. 

88 C, 18. (t.2 .Ῥ: 637 d.) Kai τοῦτο 
πᾶσιν ἀρεσάτω, ἵνα εἴ τις διάκονος, ἢ 7) 
πρεσβύτερος, ἢ ἢ καί τις τῶν κληρικῶν 
ἀκοινώνητος γένηται, καὶ πρὸς ἕτερον 
ἐπίσκοπον τὸν εἰδότα αὐτὸν καταφύ- 
γος γινώσκοντα ἀποκεκινῆσθαι αὐτὸν 
τῆς κοινωνίας παρὰ τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκό- 
που, μὴ χρῆναι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀ- 
δελφῷ αὐτοῦ ὕβριν ποιοῦντα παρέχειν 
αὐτῷ κοινωνίαν" εἰ δὲ τολμήσοι τις 
τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, γινωσκέτω συνελθόν- 
τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἀπολογίᾳ ἑ ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύ- 
θυνον καθιστάναι. 

84 C, 18. (ibid. p. 1542 a.) Pla- 
cuit, ut, quicunque non sorte μά τὰ 
in provincia propria, et in aliis pro- 
vinciis vel transmarinis partibus ad 
communicandum obrepserit, jactu- 


ram communionis vel clericatus ex- 
cipiat. 

85 Ὁ, τό. (t. 1. p. 1428 6.) De his, 
qui pro delicto suo a communione 
separantur, placuit, ut, in quibus- 
cunque locis fuerint exclusi, eodem 
loco communionem consequantur. 

86 C, 4. (t. 2. p. 1156 8.) De Pal- 
ladio laico, qui Spano presbytero 
non leve crimen intenderat, inter 
quos episcopus Triferius ejusdem 
criminis causas se cognovisse testa- 
tus est, id Concilii decrevit aucto- 
ritas, ut idem Palladius in eadem 
sententia maneret, qua cognitionis 
tempore a Triferio fuerat sacerdote 
mulctatus, in hoc ei humanitate re- 
servata Concilii, ut ipse Triferius in 
potestate habeat, quando voluerit, 
ei relaxare. 

87 C. 5. (ibid. p. τοῖο b.) Item 
lectum est, ut hi, qui per discipli- 
nam, aut sententiam episcopi ab 
ecclesia fuerint separati, ab aliis 
episcopis non sint recipiendi. 

88 Vid. Cyprian. Ep.55- [al.59.] ad 
Cornel. p. 126. (p. 259.) Legi literas 
tuas, frater carissime, quas per Sa- 
turnum fratrem nostrum Acoluthum 
misisti, et dilectionis fraterne, et 
ecclesiastice discipline, et sacerdo- 
talis censure satis plenas; quibus 
significasti, Felicissimum hostem 
Christi, non novum, sed jam pri- 
dem ob crimina sua plurima et gra- 
vissima abstentum, et non tantum 


93 


he had been excommunicated by Cyprian at Carthage. And 
for the same reason Marcion, as had been noted before, could 
find no reception among the Roman clergy, because he was ex- 
communicated by his own father, and had given no satisfaction 
to him, as Epiphanius 59 relates the story. 

St. Austin likewise writing to one Quintian%, who lay under 
the censure of his bishop, tells him, ‘ that if he came to him, not 
communicating with his own bishop, he could not be received 
to communion with him.’ Nay, he had such a regard for this 
rule of discipline, that if a Donatist, that was under censure 
among his own bishops, pretended to come over to the Catho- 
hie Church, he would not receive him without first obliging 
him to do the same penance that he should have done had he 


the discipline. 


stayed among them. And he greatly complains of the Donatist 


bishops, as ‘ dissolving all the bands of discipline, whilst they 
encouraged the greatest criminals, who were under discipline 
for their ill lives in the Church, to come over to them, where 
they might escape doing penance, under pretence of receiving 
a new baptism: and then, as if they were renewed and sancti- 
fied, though they were really made worse under pretence of 
new grace, they could insult the discipline of the Church, from 
which they fled, to the highest degree of sacrilegious madness.’ 
He gives an instance in one, who, being used to beat his mo- 
ther and threatening to kill her, was in danger of falling 
under the discipline of the Church for these his insolent and 
unnatural cruelties ; to avoid this%, ‘he goes over to the Dona- 
tists, who without any more ado rebaptize him in his madness, 


mea, sed plurimorum coépiscopo- datus ad Catholicam transire volu- 


rum sententia condemnatum, rejec- 
tum a te illic esse: et cum venisset 
stipatus caterva et factione despera- 
torum, vigore pleno, quo episcopos 
agere oportet, pulsum de ecclesia 
esse, &c. 

89 Her. 42. n.1. 
P. 45. 0. 89. 

9 Ep. rot [al.64.] (t. 2. Ρ.152 6.) 
a Si ad nos venires, venerabili 
episcopo Aurelio non communicans, 
nec apud nos posses communicare. 

91 Vid. Ep. 149. [al. 35.] ad Eu- 
seb. (t. 2. p. 67 b.) Etenim ego. 
istum modum servo, ut quisquis 
apud eos propter disciplinam degra- 


See ch. I. s. 11. 


erit, in humiliatione peenitentie re- 
cipiatur, quo et ipsi eum forsitan 
cogerent, si apud eos manere volu- 
isset. Ab eis vero considera, queso 
te, quam exsecrabiliter fiat, ut quos 
male viventes ecclesiastica disciplina 
corripimus, persuadeatur eis ut ad 
lavacrum alterum veniant ... deinde 
θεῖ renovati et quasi sanctificati, 
iscipline, quam ferre non potue- 
runt, deteriores facti sub specie no- 
ve gratiz, sacrilegio novi furoris 
insultent. 

92 Ep. 168. ad Eund. [4]. 34.] 
(ibid. p. 64 f.) Transit ad partem 
Donati, rebaptizatur furens, et in 


94 Administration of XVI. ii, 
and put on him the white garment, or albe of baptism, whilst 
he was fuming and thirsting after his mother’s blood. So this 
man, who was meditating murder against his own mother, was 
by this means advanced to an eminent and conspicuous place 
within the chancel, and set as a sanctified creature before the 
eyes of all, who could not look upon him but with sighing and 
mourning.’ The truth is, this was a very scandalous practice 
in the Donatists, done purely to strengthen their party: and 
nothing has done more mischief to the Church, or more ener- 
vated the power of ecclesiastical discipline, than the receiving 
of scandalous sinners, who fly from justice and the censures of 
the Church into other communions, and their protecting and 
even caressing them as saints, who ought to have been pun- 
ished as the greatest criminals. 

Upon this account the Church went as far as possibly she 
could, in making severe laws to discourage this practice; in- 
flicting the same penalty upon any one that received an ex- 
communicate person into public or private communion, as the 
excommunicated person himself was liable to. Thus in the 
Council of Antioch one canon 9% says, ‘ If any bishop, presbyter, 
or deacon communicate with an excommunicated person, he 
himself shall be excommunicated, as one that confounds the 
order of the Church.’ Another %, ‘If any bishop receives a 
presbyter or deacon, deposed for contumacy by his own bishop, 
he shall be censured by a synod, as one that dissolves the laws 


of the Church.’ 


maternum sanguinem fremens albis 
vestibus candidatur. Constituitur 
intra cancellos eminens atque con- 
spicuus, et omnium gementium ocu- 
lis matricidii meditator tanquam re- 
novatus ps the 

8 Coa: (t. 2. p. 561 6.) Εἰ δὲ 
φανείη τις τῶν ἐπισκόπων; πρεσβυτέ- 
ρων, ἢ διακόνων, ἢ τις τοῦ κανόνος, 
τοῖς ἀκοινωνήτοις κοινωνῶν, καὶ τοῦτον 
ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι, ὡς ἂν συγχέοντα 
τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 

94 C. 4. (ibid. p. 594 b.) Ei δὲ 
καθαιρεθέντα διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν 
[nempe διὰ τὸ ἐπιμένειν τῇ ἀταξίᾳ] 
δέχοιτο ἕτερος ἐπίσκοπος, κἀκεῖνον 
ἐπιτιμίας τυγχάνειν ὑπὸ κοινῆς συνό- 
δου, ὡς παραλύοντα τοὺς θεσμοὺς τοὺς 


And a third canon % says, ‘If any bishop 


ἐκκλησιαστικούς. 

95 C. 4. (ibid. b.) Et τις ἐπίσκο- 
πος ὑπὸ συνόδου καθαιρεθεὶς, ἢ ἢ πρεσ- 
βύτερος, ἢ διάκονος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου 
ἐπισκόπου, τολμήσειέν τι πρᾶξαι τῆς 
λειτουργίας. εἴτε ὁ ἐπίσκοπος κατὰ 
τὴν προάγουσαν συνήθειαν, εἴ τε ὁ 
διάκονος" μηκέτι ἐξὸν εἶναι αὐτῷ, μηδ᾽ 
ἐν ἑτέρᾳ συνόδῳ ἐλπίδα ἀποκαταστά- 
σεως, μήτε ἀπολογίας χώραν ἔχειν" 
ἀλλὰ δὲ τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας αὐτῷ πάν- 
τας ἀποβάλλεσθαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ 
μάλιστα εἰ μαθόντες τὴν ἀπόφασιν 
τὴν κατὰ τῶν προειρημένων ἐξενεχ- 
θεῖσαν τολμήσειαν αὐτοῖς κοινωνεῖν, 
—See also c. 1. (ibid. p. 561 a.) 


Πάντας, x. tT. X. 


IO. 


the discipline. 95 


deposed by a synod, or presbyter or deacon deposed by their 
own bishop, presume to officiate in any part of divine service ; 
they shall not only be incapable of being restored, but all that 
communicate with them shall be cast out of the Church; 
especially if they do so, after they know that sentence was 
pronounced against them.’ In like manner the first Council of 
Orange %: ‘If any bishop presumes to communicate with one 
that is excommunicate, knowing him to be so, without his 
being reconciled to the bishop by whom he was excommuni- 
eated, he shall be treated as a guilty person.’ The second 
Council of Carthage 97 says more expressly, ‘That a bishop, 
presbyter, or deacon, who receives those into communion who 
were deservedly cast out of the Church for their crimes, shall 
be held guilty of the same crimes with them.’ The fourth 


Council of Carthage 9585. declares universally, ‘Whoever he be, 


clergyman or layman, that communicates with an excommuni- 
cate person, shall himself be excommunicated.’ 

St. Basil’s words are very remarkable to an offender whom 
he threatened to excommunicate 99: ‘ Thou shalt be an ana- 
thema to all the people, and whoever receives thee shall be 
excommunicate in all Churches.’ The like may be read in the 
Apostolical Canons!, to which the ancient Councils so often 
refer as the standing rule of discipline: ‘If any clergyman or 


ΟΕ τε (ξ 3. p. 1449 d.) Pla- 
cuit in reatum venire episcopum, 
qui admonitus de excommunicatione 
cujusquam, sine reconciliatione ejus, 
qui [eum] excommunicavit, ei com- 
municare presumpserit. 

7 C, 7. (t. 2. p. 1161 b.) [Pla- 
cuit] ut qui merito facinorum suo- 
rum ab ecclesia pulsi sunt, si ab 
aliquo episcopo, vel presbytero, vel 
clerico fuerint in communionem sus- 
cepti, etiam ipse pari cum eis cri- 
mine teneatur obnoxius. 

% C. 73. (t. 2. p. 1205 6.) Qui 
communicaverit vel oraverit cum 
excommunicato, sive clericus, sive 
laicus, excommunicetur. 

% Ὁ. 89. [Grischovius boldly as- 
serts this allegation to be false, inas- 
much as the Canons of Basil do not 
exceed 85, and complains that he 
had searched the whole in vain. 


I have found the words in one of 
the appendices to Basil’s Canons, 
viz. his Epistle to Gregory the Pres- 
byter, entitled, Ut separetur a Muli- 
ercula cum qua habitat. (CC. t. 2. p. 
1765 6.) ᾿Ανάθεμα ἔσῃ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, 
καὶ οἱ δεχόμενοί σε ἐκκήρυκτοι κατὰ 
πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν γενήσονται. ED. | 

1 Ο. 13. See before, p. 91. n. 
79.—Conf. Isidor. Pelusiot. 1. 3. 
Ep. 259. (p. 361 a) Ei μὲν yap 
mapa τοῦ δεῖνος δικαίως κατεψηφισ- 
μένῳ, πᾶσα ἐφεξῆς ἢ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἄβα- 
τος, καὶ συνηγανάκτουν ἅπαντες τῷ 
ταύτην θεμένῳ τὴν ψῆφον, ἴσως ἂν 
ἐκεῖνος σωφρονισθεὶς ἐγνωσιμάχει" 
νῦν δὲ ἅμα κατέγνωσταί τις ὑπὸ τού- 
του, καὶ παρ᾽ ἄλλου πολλάκις θερα- 
πεύται, καὶ ἐκκλησία ἑτέρα ἀναπεπτα- 
μένη, καὶ δορυφορία, καὶ δῶρα, καὶ 
γίνεται τῷ ἐκβεβλημένῳ χρηματισμὸς, 
ἡ μετάστασις. 


96 Administration of 


layman, who is cast out of the Church, be received into another 
city without commendatory letters, both he that receives him 
and he that is so received shall be cast out of communion.’ 
Which answers an objection that might be raised in the case, 
viz. What if a bishop knew not by any formal intimation that 
such or such a person was excommunicate, and so through 
ignorance received him? To this it is here answered, that 
this did not excuse him, because he ought by the rule of 
Catholic commerce to receive no stranger to communion, that 
did not bring commendatory letters, or testimonials, from his 
own bishop, that he was in the communion of the Chureh. If 
any travelled without these, he was to be suspected as an ex- 
communicated person, and accordingly treated as one under 
censure. But what if a person was unjustly excommunicated 
by his own bishop? Might not another bishop do him justice, 
by relaxing his unlawful bonds, and admit him to communion ? 
I answer, No: for in this case the Church provided another 
more proper remedy, that every man should have liberty to 
appeal from the sentence of his own bishop to a provincial 
synod, which was by the Canons of Nice, and others? ap- 


2.5. See before, p. gt. ἢ. 80. 

3 C. Antioch. c.6. See n.81. p.g2. 
—C. Sardic. c. 17. (t. 2. p. 461 a.) 
.... Hpecev, iva εἴ tis ἐπίσκοπος 
βίαν ὑπομείνας ἀδίκως ἐκβληθῆ, ἢ διὰ 
τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ἢ διὰ τὴν ὁμολογίαν 
τῆς Καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἢ διὰ τὴν 
τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκδικίαν, καὶ φεύγων τὸν 
κίνδυνον, ἀθῷος καὶ καθωσιωμένος dv 
εἰς ἑτέραν ἔλθοι πόλιν, μὴ κωλυέσθω 
ἐκεῖ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον διάγειν, ἕως ἂν 
ἐπανέλθη, ἢ τῆς ὕβρεως τῆς γεγενη- 
μένης αὐτῷ ἀπαλλαγὴν εὑρέσθαι δυ- 
νηθῇ.---Ο. Carth. 2. c. 8. (ibid. p. 
1161 d.) Si quis presbyter a pre- 
posito suo excommunicatus vel cor- 
reptus fuerit, debet utique apud vi- 
cinos episcopos conqueri, ut ab ipsis 
ejus causa possit audiri, ac per ipsos 
suo episcopo reconciliari.—C. 10. 
(ibid. p. 1162 b.) Si quis episcopus 
in reatum aliquem incurrerit, et 
fuerit ei nimia necessitas non posse 
plurimos congregare, ne in crimine 
remaneat, a duodecim episcopis au- 
diatur et a sex presbyteris et a tri- 
bus diaconibus cum proprio suo 


episcopo.—C. Milevit. 2. c. 22. (ibid. 
p- 1542 e.) Placuit, ut presbyteri, 
diaconi, vel czeteri inferiores clerici, 
in causis, quas habuerint, si de ju- 
diciis episcoporum suorum questi 
fuerint, vicini episcopi eos audiant : 
et inter eos quidquid est finiant, ad- 
hibiti ab eis ex consensu episcopo- 
rum suorum.—C. Carth. 3. c. 8. 
(ibid. p. 1168 e.) Si autem presby- 
teri vel diaconi fuerint accusati, ad- 
juncto sibi ex vicinis locis legitimo 
numero collegarum, id est, in pres- 
byteri nomine quinque, in diaconi 
duobus; episcopi ipsorum causas 
discutiant, &c.—C. Vasens. c. 5. (t. 
3. p. 1457 e-) Si quis episcopi sui 
sententi# non acquiescit, recurrat 
ad synodum.—C. Venet. c. 9. (t. 4. 
p. 1056 a.) Si quis fortasse episcopi 
sui judicium cceperit habere sus- 
pectum, aut ipsi de proprietate aliqua 
adversus ipsum episcopum fuerit 
nata contentio, aliorum episcoporum 
audientiam, non szcularium potesta- 
tum, debebit ambire. 


XVI. i. 


) 10, II. the discipline. Fi 


pointed to be held twice a year for this very purpose, that if 
any one was aggrieved by the censure of his own bishop, he 
might have his cause heard over again in a provincial synod ; 
from which there lay no further appeal to any single bishop, 
no, not even to the bishop of Rome, who most pretended to it; 
but all such causes were to be heard and determined in the 
province where they arose, to obviate fraud and surreptitious 
communion, and put an end to ail strife and contention, as has 
been shown more fully in the fourteenth section of the fore- 
going chapter, out of the debate between the bishops of Rome 
and the African Churches. 

These were the rules then generally observed throughout 
the whole Catholic Church, with respect to the rejection of 
excommunicate persons from the communion of all Churches: 
and by these rules the unity of the Catholic Church was duly 
maintained, and discipline for the most part kept up in its true 
vigour and glory. 

11. But fourthly, Synesius in the forementioned form of PE 
excommunication, not only speaks of denying men communion civil eG 
in sacred things, but also in civil commerce and external con- Or’ ag 
yersation: no one was to receive excommunicated persons into conversa- 
their houses ‘, nor eat at the same table with them: they were tin. and al- 


lowed no 
not to converse with them familiarly, whilst living ; nor per- memorial 


5: 
form the funeral obsequies for them when dead, after the ee 
solemn rites and manners that were used toward other Chris- 
tians. These directions were drawn up upon the model of 
those rules of the Apostles, which forbad Christians to give 
any countenance to notorious offenders, continuing impenitent, 
eyen in ordinary conversation. As that of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 5, 
11.) “I have written unto you not to keep company, if any 
man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an 
idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with 
such an one no not to eat.” And again, (Rom. 16, 17.) “ Mark 
them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doe- 
trine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” And (2 Thess. 
3, 14.) “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note 
that man, and have no company with him, that he may be 
ashamed.” And that of St. John, (2 Ep. ro and 11.) “If 
4 (Conf. Sophocl. QEdip. Tyrann. x. τ. A.—It. Antigon. 26—3o0. Τὸν 
236. 241. Tov ἄνδρ᾽ ἀπαυδῶ τοῦτον, δ᾽ ἀθλίως θανόντα, κ. τ. X. Ev. ] 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. Η 


98 XVL. i 


there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he 
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 

In conformity to these rules, and the reasons here assigned 
for the observation of them, the Ancients made strict laws to 
forbid all familiar intercourse with excommunicated persons in 
ordinary conversation, unless some absolute necessity, or some 
greater and more obliging moral consideration required them 
to do otherwise. The first Council of Toledo has four or five 
canons to this purpose. It will be sufficient to recite the first 
of them +, which is in these words: ‘If any layman is excom- . 
municated, let no clerk or religious person come near him or 
In like manner if a clergyman is excommunicated, 
let the clergy avoid him. And if any is found to converse or 
eat with him, let him also be excommunicated.’ The second 
Council of Arles * orders a suspended bishop to be excluded 
not only from the conversation and table of the clergy, but of 
all the people likewise. And many other such canons occur in 
the Councils of Vannes 6, and the first of Tours7, and the first 
of Orleans 5, excluding excommunicate persons from all enter- 


Adininistration of 


his house. 


4 C. τος (t. 2. p. 1225 e.) Si quis 
laicus abstinetur, ad hunc vel ad 
domum ejus clericorum vel religio- 
sorum nullus accedat. Similiter et 
clericus, si abstinetur, a clericis de- 
vitetur. Si quis cum illo colloqui 
aut convivari fuerit deprehensus, 
etiam ipse abstineatur. [C.7. (ibid. p. 
1224 e.) Cum uxoribus autem ipsis, 
que peccaverint, nec cibum sumant, 
nisi forte ad timorem Dei, acta pee- 
nitentia, revertantur.—C. τό. (ibid. 
p. 1225 e.) Devotam peccantem non 
recipiendam in ecclesiam, nisi pec- 
care desierit, et desinens egerit ap- 
tam pcenitentiam decem annis, reci- 
piat communionem. Prius autem 
quam in ecclesia admittatur ad ora- 
tionem, ad nullum convivium Chris- 
tiane mulieris accedat. Quod si 
admissa fuerit, etiam heec, quae eam 
recepit, habeatur abstenta.—C. 18. 
(ibid. 1226 c.) Si qua vidua episco- 
pi, sive presbyteri, aut diaconi, ma- 
ritum acceperit, nullus clericus, nul- 
la religiosa cum ea convivium sumat, 
nunquam communicet. Grischov.] 

5 Ὁ. 30. [al. 49.] (t.4. p. 1016 e.) 


... Hune [suspensum episcopum] 
non solum a clericorum, sed etiam 
a totius populi colloquio atque con- 
vivio placuit excludi. 

6 C.3. (ibid. p. 1055 c.) Poenitentes 
quoque, qui susceptam publice peeni- 
tentiam intermiserint, et ad prioris 
erroris consuetudinem revoluti, vitee 
se seculari conversationique reddi- 
derint, non solum a communione 
Dominicorum sacramentorum, sed 
etiam a conviviis fidelium submo- 
vendos.—Conf. C. Ilerdens. c. 4. 
(ibid. p. 1611 e.) De his, qui se 
incesta pollutione commaculant, pla- 
cuit, ut quousque in ipso detestando 
et illicito carnis contubernio perse- 
verant, usque ad missam tantum 
catechumenorum in ecclesia admit- 
tantur: cum quibus etiam nec ci- 
bum sumere ullum Christianorum, 
sicut Apostolus jussit, oportet. 

7 C.8. (ibid. p. 1052 a)... A con- 
vivio fidelium extraneus habeatur. 

8 C. 3. (ibid. p. 1405 ¢.) Pro con- 
temptu ecclesiz et praevaricatione 
fidei a communione et convivio 
Catholicorum .... extraneus habe- 


pat. 


τς, 


tainments of the faithful. The Apostolical Canons 9 forbid any 
one to communicate in prayer so much as in a private house 
with excommunicate persons under the same penalty of excom- 
munication. And if they happened to die in professed re- 
bellion and contempt of penance, then they were treated as all 
other contemners and despisers of holy ordinances were, by 
being denied the honour and benefit of Christian burial. No 
solemnity of psalmody or prayers was used at their funeral: 
nor were they ever to be mentioned among the faithful out of 
the diptychs, or holy books of the Church, according to custom 
in the prayers at the altar. This is evident, not only from 
what is said by Synesius, but from the whole tenour of eccle- 
siastical discipline ; which excludes all that die in professed 


the discipline. 


rebellion and contempt from the privilege of Christian burial, 


such as catechumens dying in wilful neglect of baptism, and 
those that laid violent hands upon themselves, and such like?°, 
as all dying in impenitency and a desperate condition. And it 
is further evident from that very exception, which we have 
observed before!! to be made in favour of such humble 
penitents, as modestly submitted to the discipline of the Church, 
and were labouring earnestly to obtain a re-admission, but 
were snatched away by sudden death, before they could obtain 
the formality of an absolution: in this case, as 1 showed, the 
Canons 13 allowed their oblations to be received, and their 
funeral obsequies to be celebrated after the usual solemnity 
and manner of the Church: which exception supposes, that all 
the rest, who died refractory and impenitent, were wholly 
denied these privileges, as a just consequence of their censures. 
Not to mention now the custom of erasing the names of excom- 


atur. — Conf. Carth. 4. c. 70. (t. 2. 
p- 1205 4.) Clericus hereticorum 
et schismaticorum tam convivia 
quam sodalitates evitet zequaliter. 

9 C. 11. [4]. 10.] (Cotel. [ς. 8.] 
Vv. I. p. 438.) Εἴ τις ἀκοινωνήτῳ, κἂν 
ἐν οἴκῳ, συνεύξηται, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀφο- 
ριζέσθω. 

10 Vid. C. Bracar. 1. c. 34. (al. 
Bracar. 2. 6. 16.] (t. 5. p. 841 e.) 
Placuit, ut hi, qui sibi ipsis aut per 
ferrum, aut per venenum, aut per 
precipitium, aut suspendium, vel 
quolibet modo violentam inferunt 


mortem, nulla pro illis in oblatione 
commemoratio fiat, neque cum psal- 
mis ad sepulturam eorum cadavera 
deducantur.—Cf. c. 35. [4]. Bracar. 
2. c. 17.] (ibid. 6.) Item placuit, ut 
catechumenis sine redemptione bap- 
tismi defunctis, simili modo, neque 
oblationis commemoratio, neque 
psallendi impendatur officium ; nam 
et hoc per ignorantiam usurpatum 
est. 

11 Ch. 1. s. 7, preceding. 

12 Vid. C. Vasens. 2. c. 2. 
before, ch. 1. 8. 7. p. 36. ἢ. 75. 


ἘΠ 


See 


100 Administration of XVI. it 


municate persons out of the diptychs, or sacred registers of the 
Church, which was the immediate effect of excommunication, 
and excluded them from all the privileges of any future me- 
morial!? or commemoration, till they were restored again. 
I will not stand now to dispute, whether this custom took its 
original from the practice of the Jewish synagogue; or whether 
our Saviour alluded to that practice as some learned men "5 
think, when he said to his disciples, (Luke 6, 22.) “ Blessed 
are ye, when they shall separate, or excommunicate, you out 
of the synagogue, and cast out, or expunge, your names out of 
the holy books.” Certain it is, that, as this erasing or expung- 
ing the names of excommunicate persons out of the diptychs 
was used in the Christian Church, it always implied the denial 
of communion to them even after death: they could neither 
have a Christian burial, nor a Christian commemoration, among 
those that were departed in the true faith and unity of the 
Church ; but were excluded, both living and dying, from all 
society both sacred and civil, as the immediate effect and con- 
sequence either of a voluntary and chosen, or a judicial and 
penal excommunication. 

For to show that these were not mere empty and ineffective 
laws, we may often observe them in a remarkable manner put 
in practice. Irenzus?!> tells us from those who had it from the 
mouth of Polycarp, ‘that when he once occasionally accom- 
panied St. John into a bath at Ephesus, and they there found 


13 Vid. Evagr. 1. 3. c. 24. [Non 
liquet. Vide I; 4;.¢. 58..{ν- 8. Pp: 419. 
£7.) ᾿Αναγνωσθεισῶν πολλῶν ῥήσεων 
Θεοδώρου καὶ Θεοδωρίτου, δειχθέντος 
δὲ ὡς καὶ πάλαι Θεόδωρος κατεκέκριτο, 
καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν ἀπηλείφει δέλτων, 
καὶ ὡς μετὰ θάνατον δέοι τοὺς aipe- 
τικοὺς κατακρίνεσθαι: Θεόδωρον μὴν 
ἁπάσαις τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον ἀναθεματί- 
ζουσι, κι τι A. Ep.] 

14 Dodwell, Dissertat. vy. in Cypr. 
n. 18. (Dissertat. p. 28.) Huc enim 
referenda existimo illa Salvatoris 
verba, Μακάριοι, x. τ. Χ. De syna- 
goge censuris hec intellexisse Do- 
minum constat e voce ἀφορίσωσι. 
Ita enim excommunicationem deno- 
tabant Judei Helleniste, ita etiam 
ecclesiastici, nec ulla vox frequenitus 
occurrit in canonibus. (See Park- 


hurst’s Lexicon to the New Test. 
for the word ἀποσυνάγωγος, which 
occurs Joh. 9, 22. 12, 42. 16, 2., 
descriptive as it is of the condition 
of one deprived both of civil and 
religious privileges. So Theophy- 
lact on Luk. 6, 22., explains ἀφο- 
ρίσωσιν ὑμᾶς as equivalent to ἀπο- 
συναγώγους ποιήσουσιν, saying, Τῶν 
συνεδρίων καὶ ἐνδόξων καὶ ὅλως τῆς 
αὐτῶν κοινωνίας ἀφορίσουσιν. Ep. | 
16 Ds, 3: & 4. (p. 204. 4.) Εἰσὶν 
οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ιωάννης 6 τοῦ 
Κυρίου μαθητὴς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ἐφέσῳ πορευ- 
θεὶς λούσασθαι, καὶ ἰδὼν € ἔσω Κήριν- 
θον, ἐξήλατο, τοῦ ῦ βαλανείου μὴ λουσά- 
μενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπὼν, “Φύγωμεν, μὴ καὶ 
τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ, ἔνδον ὄντος 
Κηρίνθου, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ. 


met. 


the discipline. 101 


Cerinthus the heretic, St. John immediately cried out to Poly- 
carp, Let us fly hence, lest the bath should fall, in which 
Cerinthus the enemy of truth is.’ Eusebius!© and Theodoret 17 
both mention the same story out of Irenzeus ; and Epiphanius'* 
also relates it at large, only with this difference, that it was 
Ebion the heretic, to whom by the guidance of the Spirit he 
showed this aversion for a memorial and example to future 
ages. Whence Baronius!9 conjectures both those heretics might 
be present, and that the saying had equal relation to them both. 
Trenzus in the same place?° adds this further concerning Poly- 
carp, ‘that happening once to meet Marcion the heretic, and Mar- 
ion asking him whether he did not know him? he replied, Yes, 
I know thee to be the first-born of Satan.’ ‘So cautious,’ says 
Treneus, ‘ were the Apostles and their disciples not to commu- 
nicate so much as in word,—prh expt λόγου Kowavety,—with 
the perverters of truth, according to that of St. Paul, (Tit. 3, 
1o and 11.) “A man that is an heretic after the first and 
second admonition reject; knowing that such an one is sub- 
verted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” In like 
manner St. Ambrose?! observes of a certain Christian judge, in 
the time of Julian, ‘that having condemned one of his brethren 
for demolishing an altar, no one would vouchsafe to associate 
with him, no one would speak to him or salute him.’ And St. 
Basil2? writing to Athanasius concerning a certain governor of 


16 L. 4. (ἢ. 14. (ν. I. p. 161. 19.) 
Kai εἰσὶν of ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἴω- 
ἄννης, κι τ. A. 

7 Heret. Fabul. 1. 2. c. 3. (t. 4 
part. I. p. 330.) Τοῦτον, ὥς φασιν, Ὃ 
Θεσπέσιος ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ εὐαγγελλιστὴς 
λουόμενον θεασάμενος, κ. T. A. 

18 Her. 30. Ebion. ἢ. 24. (t. 1. 
p- 149 a.) Σπεύσατε, ἀδελφοὶ, ἔφη. 
ἐξέλθωμεν ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ πέσῃ τὸ βα- 
λανεῖον, καὶ ἀπολώμεθα μετὰ ᾿Εβιῶνος, 
τοῦ ἔνδον ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ, διὰ τὴν 
αὐτοῦ ἀσέβειαν. 

19 An. 74. n. 0. (t. 1. p. ἴΟΙ a.) 
Ne dicamus Epiphanium esse hal- 
lucinatum, haud inconveniens erit 
existimare, utrumque simul in bal- 
Neis repertum esse : siquidem magna 
necessitudo, ex impietatis similitu- 
dine comparata, intercedebat inter 
eos, &c.—Conf. Suicer. Thesaur. 
Eccles, voce, Αἱρετικός, (t. 1. p. 128.) 


Quid si uterque, Ebion nimirum et 
Cerinthus, ut ejusdem fere impietatis 
professores, tum in balneum vel ex 
condicto, aut preter spem simul 
convenissent ? 

0 [L. 3. 6. 3. (p. 204. 9.) 
Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Πολύκαρπος Μαρκίωνί 
ποτε εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ ἐλθόντι καὶ φή- 
σαντι, ἘἘπιγινώσκεις ἡμᾶς ; ἀπεκρίθη, 
᾿ΕἘπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σα- 
Tava’ τοσαύτην οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι καὶ οἱ 
μαθηταὶ αὐτῶν ἔσχον εὐλάβειαν, πρὸς 
τὸ μηδὲ μέχρι λόγου κοινωνεῖν τινὶ 
τῶν παραχαρασσάντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 
ὡς καὶ Παῦλος ἔφησεν, Aiperixdy ἄν- 
θρωπον, x. t.A. Grischov. | 

21 Ep. 29. [al. 40.] ad Theodos, 
(t. 2. p. 8 1 c. n. 17.).... Nemo 
illum congressu, nemo illum unquam 
osculo dignum putavit. 

22 Ep. 47. [al. 61.] (t. 3. part. 1. 


Pp. 223 a.).. Amrorpdématoy αὐτὸν πάν- 


102 


Administration of XVI. i 


Libya, whom Athanasius had excommunicated for his immo- 
ralities, and according to custom had given notice of it to Basil, 
tells him, ‘they would all avoid him, and have no communion 
with him in fire, or water, or house, that is, in the common 
ways of ordinary conversation.’ A great many other instances 
of the like kind might be given, but I shall only add that of 
Monicha, St. Austin’s mother, toward her son whilst he con- 
tinued a Manichee. St. Austin himself 2 tells us that she so 
detested the blasphemies of his error, and had such an aversion 
to him upon the account of them, that she would not admit 
him to eat with her at the same table in her own house. This 
was according to the discipline then practised in the Church,» 
to deny sinners not only communion in sacred things, but also 
in the civil commerce of ordinary conversation. 


The 5 12. Now all this was done for yery wise ends and reasons 

ounds Sn pe . . . 
odreasons Of Christian prudence and charity. First, to make sinners 
of ἐγ ashamed, and by that shame to bring them to repentance. 
practice. 


This is the reason given by the Apostle, “ Note that man, and 
have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” [2 Thess. 
3,14.] Next, to terrify others by their example. Both these 
reasons are assigned by the canon of the Council of Tours, 
which orders relapsing sinners to be excluded both from the 
communion of the Church and the entertainments of the faith- 
ful, that the shame and confusion arising from such treatment 
might bring them to compunction, and terrify others by their 
example. 

A third reason was the fear of partaking in other men’s 
sins. If by their society they seemed to show any countenance 
to them, it would be an hardening them in their iniquity, and in- 
volve such as contributed thereto in the same guilt with the 


τες ἡγήσονται, μὴ πυρὸς, μὴ ὕδατος. 
μὴ σκέπης αὐτῷ κοινωνοῦντες. 

23 Confess. 1.3. c. 11. (t. 1. Ρ.95 
d.).... Ut vivere me concederet, [8]. 
me secum crederet] et habere secum 
eandem mensam in domo, quod 
nolle coeperat, aversans et detestans 
blasphemiaserroris mei.—Vid. Serm. 
de ‘Temp. 215. [al. Serm. 265. ap- 
pend.] (t. 5. append. p. 438 b.).... 
Quoscunque tales esse cognoveritis, 
durissime castigate: et, si emendare 
noluerint, nec ad colloquium, nec ad 


convivium vestrum eos venire per- 
mittite. 

24 Ὁ. 8. (t. 4. Ρ. 1052 a.) Si 
quis post acceptam pcenitentiam, 
sicut canis ad vomitum suum, ita 
ad seculares illecebras, derelicta 
quam professus est pcenitentia, fu- 
erit reversus, a communione eccle- 
siz, vel a convivio fidelium extraneus 
habeatur, quo facilius et ipse com- 
punctionem per hance confusionem 
accipiat, et alii ejus terreantur ex- 
emplo. 


12. 


the discipline. 103 


criminals themselves. ‘Therefore, says St. Cyprian? ’, ‘ we 
ought to withdraw from sinners, and even fly from them, lest, 
if a man join himself to those that walk disorderly and go in 
the paths of error and wickedness, he himself also be held in 
the guilt of the same crimes.’ For this reason, writing to the 
people of Leon and Astorga in Spain, where two bishops, 
Basilides and Martial, had been deposed for lapsing into 
idolatry, who afterwards made an attempt to draw in the 
people to accept them again for their bishops, after others had 
regularly by the discipline of the Church been ordained in 
their room, he tells them®, ‘they should not flatter themselves 
as if they were free from partaking in sin, if they communi- 
eated with a sinful bishop and gave their consent to the un- 
Jawful and unjust establishment of him in his bishopric, since 
the divine judgment had threatened and said by the Prophet 
Hosea [ 9. 4.] ‘‘ Their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread 
of mourners: all that eat thereof shall be polluted .” teach- 
ing and showing us that all men are bound over unto sin 
who are defiled with the sacrifice of a profane and unjust 
priest. Which we find also to be declared in the Book 
of Numbers, when Korah, Dathan, and Abiram assumed 
to themselves the power of offering sacrifice in opposition 
to Aaron the priest. There the Lord commanded the 
people by Moses to separate themselves from them, lest if they 
were joined with those wicked men they should be smitten in 
their wickedness. “Depart,” says he, “from the tents of 


25 De Unit. Eccles. p. 119. (p. 
85.) Recedendum est a delinquenti- 
bus, vel immo fugiendum, ne, dum 
quis male ambulantibus jungitur, et 
per itinera erroris et criminis gradi- 
tur, pari crimine et ipse teneatur. 

26 Ep. 68. [al. 67.] ad Plebem 
Legionis et Asturice, p. 171. (p. 
288.) Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, 
quasi immunis esse a contagio de- 
licti possit, cum sacerdote peccatore 
communicans, et ad injustum atque 
illicitum przpositi sui episcopatum 
consensum suum commodans, quan- 
do per Osee prophetam comminetur 
et dicat censura Divina, Sacrificia 
eorum tanquam panis luctus : omnes, 


qui manducant ea, contaminabuntur :- 
docens scilicet et ostendens omnes 
omnino ad peccatum constringi, qui 
fuerint profani et injusti sacerdotis 
sacrificio contaminati. Quod item 
in Numeris manifestari invenimus, 
quando Chore, et Dathan, et Abiron 
contra Aaron sacerdotem sacrificandi 
sibi licentiam vindicaverunt. Illic 
quoque per Moysen precepit Do- 
minus, ut ab eis populus separetur, 
ne facinorosis conjunctus eodem 
facinore et ipse perstringatur: Sepa- 
ramini, inquit, a tabernaculis homi- 
num istorum durissimorum, et nolite 
tangere ea, que ad eos pertinent, ne 
simul pereatis in peccato eorum, 


104 Administration of XVL. ii. 


these hardened [wicked] men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest 
ye be consumed in all their sins.”’ [Num. 16, 26.] 

A fourth reason was, to avoid contagion and infection. For 
conversing with profane men is endangering a man’s own vir- 
tue: “ Evil communications corrupt good manners.” [1 Cor, 
15, 33-] An infected member often destroys the whole body. 
Therefore as vile and notorious sinners were for this reason 
cut off from the body of the Church: so for the same reason 
all men were afterwards to avoid their society, for fear the 
poison of their infamous conversation should infect their morals, 
and diffuse itself into their minds by any artful conveyance of 
cunning craftiness, or the natural influence of bad example. 
For wicked men “ speak with their feet, and teach with their 
fingers,” as the Wise Man elegantly words it: [Prov. 6, 13.] 
their actions, as well as their discourses, are of a malignant in- 
fluence, and are apt to leave ill tinctures and impressions upon the 
minds of others, so that a man cannot ordinarily converse with 
them without danger of infection. ‘ Therefore,’ says Cyprian®’, 
‘avoid such men, and drive away their pernicious communica- 
tions both from your conversation and your ears, as the conta- 
gion of death. For thus it is written*, “ Hedge about thine 
ears with thorns, and hearken not to an evil tongue.” And 
again, “ Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Our 
Lord teaches and admonishes us to withdraw from such, saying, 
“ They are blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the 
blind, they shall both fall into the ditch.”’ 

But, fifthly, admitting some could converse with such with- 
out danger to themselves, they could not without manifest 
danger to others, who are weak and apt to be emboldened 


27 De Unit. Eccles. p. 115. (p. 
83.) Vitate, queso vos, ejusmodi 
homines, et a latere atque auribus 
vestris perniciosa colloquia, velut 
contagium mortis, arcete, sicut scrip- 
tum est, Sepi aures tuas spinis, et 
noli audire linguam nequam. Et ite- 
rum, Corrumpunt ingenia bona con- 
fabulationes pessime. Docet Domi- 
nus, et admonet a talibus receden- 
dum. Ceci sunt, inquit, duces ce- 
corum ; cecus autem cecum ducens, 
simul in foveam cadent. Aversan- 


dus est talis atque fugiendus, quis- 
quis fuerit ab ecclesia separatus. 

28 [Referring to Ecclesiasticus, 
ch. 28. v.24. Look that thou hedge 
thy possession about with thorns, and 
bind up thy silver and gold. Not 
much to the purpose: but the latter 
clause according to the Compluten- 
sian is thus,—Kal τῷ στόματί σου 
ποίησον θυρώματα καὶ μοχλούς. --- 
The latter citation is well known. 
See 1 Cor. 15, 35. Ep.] 


ΠΕ7. 13, 14. the discipline. 105 


to follow the example of the strong to their apparent ruin and 
destruction. 

For these and the like reasons, whenever the Church cast 
any notorious offenders wholly out of her communion, she pro- 
hibited all others from conversing with them, both in kindness 
to the sinners and to the righteous, lest the one should be 
hardened in their impenitency, and the other corrupted by the 
spreading contagion and infection. 

13. It is further observable, that as an indication of the No dona- 
Church’s abhorrence of excommunicate persons, she allowed [yrs 0°" 
no gifts or oblations to be received from them; because that oe be 
might have been interpreted retaining them still in some mea- from ex- 
sure in her communion, and involving herself in the guilt of ar μῦρα 
filthy luecre. Therefore she never admitted any one to make cons, 
oblations, but such as were in full communion with her, and 
might lawfully partake of the sacrifice of the altar; as I have 
had occasion to show more fully in another place?®. Here I 
only note it again as a thing most remarkable, that she had 
such an aversion to any thing that appertained to them, that 
she would not so much as retain those gifts which any such 
persons had freely offered whilst they were in communion with 
her. This we learn from Tertullian, who, speaking of the 
expulsion of Valentinus and Marcion for their heresies at Rome, 
says, ‘they were cast out once and again, and particularly 
Marcion with his two hundred sestertia, which he had brought 
into the Church.’ 

14. There are several other instances of their aversion to 
heretics in particular, when once the censures of the Church 
were passed upon them. The Council of Laodicea not only 
forbids?! all men to frequent their cemeteries and meetings, 


No one to 
marry with 
excommu- 
nicate here- 
tics, or re- 
ceive their 


29 B. 15. ch. 2. s. 3. v.5. p. 241. 

80 De Prescript. c. 30. (p. 212 
b.) Ubi tune Marcion, Ponticus 
nauclerus, Stoic studiosus? Ubi 
Valentinus, Platonic sectator? Nam 
constat illos neque adeo olim fuisse, 
Antonini fere principatu, et in Ca- 
tholicze primo doctrinam credidisse 
apud ecclesiam Romanensem, sub 
episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti, do- 
nec ob inquietam semper eorum cu- 
riositatem, quam fratres quoque vita- 
bant, semel et iterum ejecti, Marcion 


quidem cum ducentis sestertiis, que 
ecclesiz intulerat, novissime in per- 
petuum discidium relegati, venena 
doctrinarum suarum disseminave- 
runt. 

31 C9. (t. 1. p. 1497 ¢.) Περὶ τοῦ 
μὴ συγχωρεῖν εἰς τὰ κοιμητήρια, ἢ εἰς 
τὰ λεγόμενα μαρτύρια πάντων τῶν 
αἱρετικῶν, ἀπίεναι τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
εὐχῆς ἢ θεραπείας ἕνεκα, κ. τ. λ.--- 
C. 33. (ibid. p. 1501 6.) ὍὍοτι οὐ δεῖ 
αἱρετικοῖς ἢ σχισματικοῖς συνεύχεσ- 


θαι.---Ο. 34. (ibid. 6.) “Ore οὐ δεῖ 


106 Adininistration of 


eulogia, or 
read their 

books, but 
burn them. 


held at the monuments of their pretended martyrs. or any 
where to pray with them; but also to receive any presents 
under the name of eulogiw from them; because this was in 
some sort to communicate with them; these eulogice or sancti- 
fied loaves, being one way of testifying men’s communion one 
with another. The same Council? also forbids alt members of 
the Church to enter into communion with heretics, by giving 
their sons or daughters in marriage to them; neither are they 
allowed to take the sons or daughters of heretics in marriage 
to themselves, unless? they promise to become Christians. 
Where we may observe also, that they did not allow heretics, 
after they had broken the faith and communion of the Church, 
absolutely speaking, so much as the name of Christians. Other 
laws strictly prohibit men to read the books of heretics, as 
imagining that the poison of their errors was in a great mea- 
sure dispersed and conveyed by them. Socrates®* has re- 
corded a letter of Constantine the Great, wherein he orders 
the Arians to be branded and stigmatized with the name of 
Porphyrians, and their books to be burnt, and makes it death 
for any one to conceal them and save them from the flames. 
And there are two laws now exstant in the Theodosian Code, 
wherein the very same things are enjoined under very severe 
penalties. The first is a law2 made by Arcadius and Hono- 


XVI. ii 


πάντα Χριστιανὸν ἐγκαταλείπειν μάρ- 
τυρας Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἀπιέναι πρὸς τοὺς 
Ψευδομάρτυρας, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, αἱρετι- 
κῶν, ἢ αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους 
αἱρετικοὺς γενομένους" οὗτοι γὰρ ἀλ- 
λότριοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τυγχάνουσιν. 

32 Ibid. c. 22. (6.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ αἷρε- 
τικῶν εὐλογίας λαμβάνειν, αἵ τινές 
εἰσιν ἀλογίαι μᾶλλον ἢ εὐλογίαι. 

88. C. το. (ibid. 1497 4.) Περὶ τοῦ, 
μὴ δεῖν τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀδιαφόρως 
πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν συνάπτειν τὰ 
ἑαυτῶν παιδία αἱρετικοῖς. 

34 Tbid. 31. (p- 1501 4.) Ὅτι οὐ 
δεῖ πρὸς πάντας αἱρετικοὺς ἐπιγαμίας 
ποιεῖν, ἢ διδόναι υἱοὺς ἢ θυγατέρας, 
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον λαμβάνειν, εἴγε ἐπαγ- 

έλλοιντο Χριστιανοὶ γίνεσθαι. --- 
Cf. C. Eliber. c. 16. (ibid. p. 972 ἃ.) 
Heretici si se transferre noluerint 
ad ecclesiam Catholicam, nec ipsis 
Catholicas dandas esse puellas; sed 


neque Judzis, neque hereticis, dare 
placuit ; eo quod nulla possit esse 
societas fideli cum infideli. 

35 L. 1. c.9. (Vv. 2. Ρ.31. 35.)... 
[Ἔδοξεν Αρειόν τε καὶ τοὺς ᾿Αρείου᾽ 
ὁμογνώμονας, Πορφυριανοὺς μὲν κα- 
λεῖσθαι, ἵ ἵν᾽ ὧν τοὺς τρόπους μεμίμην- 
cee τούτων ἔχωσι καὶ τὴν ATR γος 
ρίαν" πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ εἴ τι σύγ- 
γραμμα ὑπὸ ᾿Αρείου συντεταγμένον 
oe τοῦτο πυρὶ παραδίδοσθαι. 

«Ἐκεῖνο μέν τοι προαγορεύω, ὡς 
εἴ τις σύγγραμμα ὑπὸ ᾿Δρείου συντα- 
γὲν φωραθείη κρύψας, καὶ μὴ εὐθέως 
προσενεγκὼν πυρὶ καταναλώση, τούτῳ 
θάνατος ἔσταὶϊ ἡ ζημία. 

86 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 5. de 
Heereticis, leg. 34. (t. 6. p. 152.) Eu- 
nomiane superstitionis clerici, seu 
Montanistz, consortio vel conversa- 
tione civitatum universarum atque 
urbium expellantur... . Codices sane 


the discipline. 107 
rius against the Eunomians, a noted branch of the Arian heresy, 
wherein their books are ordered to be sought after with a very 
diligent search, and to be burnt in the sight of the judges. 
And if any one was convicted of fraudulent hiding, and not 
discovering them, he should be punished with death, as a 
retainer and concealer of pernicious and magical books, con- 
taining the institutions of all manner of wickedness. The other 
law was made by Theodosius Junior against the Nestorians, 
where he refers to the former law of Constantine, and orders 
the followers of Nestorius to be called Simonians, for their 
imitating the portentous superstitions of Simon Magus; as 
Constantine had appointed the Arians to be called Porphyrians, 
from Porphyry the Heathen. Then he orders*’ their books, 
written against the Catholic faith and the Council of Ephesus, 
to be publicly burnt, forbidding any one to have, read, or 
transcribe them, under pain of confiscation. 

This custom of burning heretical books is confirmed by many 
other laws; of which more hereafter, when we come to speak 
of the punishment of heretics in particular. Here I observe, 
that the prohibition of reading or retaining them was so limited 
by the Church, as to allow bishops to read them, when time 
and necessity so required, in order to confute them. For the 
fourth Council of Carthage®’, which forbids them universally 


eorum, scelerum omnium doctrinam 
ac materiam continentes, summa sa- 
gacitate mox queri ac prodi exserta 
auctoritate mandamus, sub aspecti- 
bus eorum judicantum incendio mox 
eremandos. Ex quibus si quis forte 
aliquid qualibet occasione vel fraude 
occultasse, nec prodidisse convinci- 
tur, sciat se, velut noxiorum codi- 
cum, et maleficii crimine conscrip- 
torum, retentorem, capite esse plec- 
tendum. 

87 Ibid. leg. 66. (t.6. p. 190.) Et 
in Act. C. Ephes. part. 3. c. 46. (CC. 
t.3. p. 1211 ὃ.) Damnato portentosz 
superstitionis auctore Nestorio, nota 
congrui nominis ejus inuratur gre- 
galibus, ne Christianorum appella- 
tione abutantur: sed quemadmodum 
Ariani lege dive memorize Constan- 
tini ob similitudinem impietatis Por- 
phyriani a Porphyrio nuncupantur, 
sic utique participes nefarie secte 


Nestorii Simoniani vocentur: ut cu- 
jus scelus sunt in deserendo Deo 
imitati, ejus vocabulum jure videan- 
tur esse sortiti. Nec vero impios 
libros nefandi sacrilegii Nestorii, ad- 
versus venerabilem Orthodoxorum 
sectam decretaque sanctissimi ccetus 
antistitum Ephesi habiti scriptos, ha- 
bere, aut legere, aut describere quis- 
quam audeat: quos diligenti studio 
requiri, ac publice comburi decerni- 
mus. Ita, ut nemo in religionis dis- 
putatione aliquam supradicto nomine 
faciat mentionem: aut quibusdam 
eorum, habendi concilii gratia, in 
zedibus, aut villa, aut suburbano suo, 
aut alio quolibet loco, conventicu- 
lum, clam aut aperte, praebeat; quos 
omni conventus celebrandi licentia 
privari statuimus: scientibus uni- 
versis, violatorem hujus legis publi- 
catione bonorum esse coércendum. 
38 (, τό. (t. 2. p. 1201 c.) Ut epi- 


108 ΧΥ ἢ 


Administration of 


the reading of Heathen authors, allows the reading of heretical 
books, with this limitation and restriction. And therefore the 
retaining them in this case was not to be interpreted that 
fraudulent retaining and concealment, which the imperial laws 
condemned under the penalties of confiscation and death. 
Gothofred#9 observes one thing further upon the usefulness 
and effect of these laws, which is fit to be remarked, ‘ that the 
terror of them made heretics very cautious how they dispersed 
their books, and others as cautious how they retained or con- 
cealed them : insomuch that when St. Basil was about to con- 
fute the first Book of Eunomius, he had a hard matter to com- 
pass it, as Photius4° reports, the Eunomians were so indus- 
trious in concealmg it. And when Eunomius had written 
his latter Books in answer to Basil he durst not publish them, 
but only among his confederates, in St. Basil’s life time, 
for fear of Basil; and after his death*!, durst only trust them 
in the hands of his friends, for fear of the penalties which the 
laws had laid upon them; though Philostorgius “5, the Arian 
historian, makes bold after his manner to give a different 
relation of it. 


What 15. There are two or three things more, relating to the 
o 

meant by sate ae Ξ 

delivering Manner and form and effects of excommunication, which have 

unto Satan. 


something of difficulty in them, and therefore it will be proper 
to give them a little explication here. 
The first difficulty arises from the Apostle’s order, given to 


scopus Gentilium libros non legat ; 


μῦθος τὸ γέννημα καταπιὼν, ἔκρυπτέ 
hereticorum autem pro necessitate 


τε καὶ συνεκάλυπτε" μέχρις ἂν ἡ Βα- 


et tempore.—See before, b. 6. ch. 3. 
8. 4. V.2. p. 236., where this ques- 
tion is treated more largely. 

39 In Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 5. de 
Hereticis, leg. 34. (t.6. p.153. ad 
summ. col. dextr.) Quanquam me- 
minerimus hec et similia ab impera- 
toribus, ubi ad summam impuden- 
tiam heeretici venerant, ad terrorem 
ferme scripta, &c. 

40 Biblioth. cod. 137. (p.313- 15.) 
Κρύφιον δὲ καὶ ἀνέκφορον τοῖς ἄλλοις 
εἶναι διεσπούδαστο, μόλις ποτὲ 6 μέ- 
γας Βασίλειος ἐπὶ χεῖρας λαβεῖν δυνη- 
θεὶς, κι τ. ὰ. 

41 Τριὰ. cod. 138. (p. 313- 43-) 


᾿Επιμελῶς, καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ τοῦ Κρόνον 


σιλείου ζωὴ τῷ ἐπικήρῳ παρατεινο- 
μένη βίῳ τὸν φόβον ἐ ἐπέσειεν᾽ ἐπεὶ δὲ 
ὁ θεῖος ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ, τὴν παροικίαν 
λιπὼν, εἰς τὸν οἰκεῖον καὶ οὐράνιον 
κλῆρον ἀνέδραμε, τοῦ πολλοῦ λυθέν- 
τος δέους, ὅτε τοῦ καιροῦ τὸ δημο- 
σιεύειν ὑπῆρχεν, οὔτε τότε πᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ 
τοῖς φίλοις ἐθάρρησεν. 


42.1, 8. c. 12. {0150 5.1.1ῷὸ 8. 


7 
Ore ov μόνον τὸν μέγαν Βασίλειον, 


ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ᾿Απολλινάριον λέγει 
πρὸς τὴν ἀπολογίαν Εὐνομίου ἀντι- 
γράψαι" εἶτα πάλιν, Εὐνομίου ἐν πέντε 
λόγοις συμπλακέντος Βασιλείῳ, ἐ ἐντυ- 
χεῖν ἐκεῖνον τῷ πρώτῳ, καὶ βαρυθυμή- 
σαντα λιπεῖν τὸν βίον. 





the discipline. 109 


the Corinthians, how to proceed against the incestuous person 
who had married his father’s wife, (1 Cor. 5, 5,) where he en- 
joins them, in the name and with the power of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, to “deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction 
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the 
Lord Jesus.” So again, (1 Tim. 1, 20,) speaking of Hyme- 
neus and Philetus, he says, “ Whom I have delivered unto 
Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 

There are two famous expositions of these passages. Bishop 
Beveridge*, and Estius*, after Balsamon?> and Zonaras*®, 
with many other modern interpreters, whom Estius mentions, 
think that delivering unto Satan is but another expression for 
excommunication, and the spiritual effects consequent to it; 


that is, the punishment of the soul, and not of the body. For 


when men are cast out of the society of the faithful, which is 
the Church of Christ, they are thereby deprived of all the be- 
nefits that are proper and peculiar to that society; as the com- 
mon prayers of the Church, the public use of the word or doc- 
trine, the participation of the sacrament, the pastoral care of 
those that preside over them, and the special grace of divine 
protection; and so remain exposed to the tyranny and incur- 
sions of Satan, whose kingdom is without the Church. And thus 
far they allow that every excommunicated person was delivered 
unto Satan, but not for any corporal vexation or punishment 
to be inflicted on him. 


43 Not. in C. Apost. 10. Oper. t. 
2. append. p. 21. (ap. Cotel. v. 1. 
SS? Ipse fundator et caput 
ecclesie in mandatis dedit, ut qui 
ecclesiam audire neglexerit, sit ὥσ- 
περ 6 ἐθνικὸς καὶ 6 τελώνης, Matth. 
18,17: hoc est, ecclesia ejiciatur, sive 
excommunicetur. Quod D. Paulus 
postea expressit per παραδοῦναι τῷ 
Sarava, 1 Cor. 5, 5. 1 Tim. 1, 20. 

44 In 1 Cor. 5, 5. (p. 227.) Dicun- 
tur enim, qui ad hunc modum ex- 
communicantur, tradi Satane, quia 
projecti extra societatem fidelium, 
que est ecclesia Christi, et per hoc 
pr vari bonis omnibus illi societatem 
fid elium, quz est ecclesia Christi, 
et per hoc privari bonis omnibus illi 
societati propriis ac peculiaribus, ve- 
luti sunt orationes ac suffragia com- 
munia, sacramentorum participatio, 


specialis divina protectio, cura pasto- 
ralis eorum, qui presunt et cztera 
talia; tyrannidi et incursibus Dia- 
boli, cujus regnum est extra eccle- 
siam, relinquuntur expositi. 

45 In Basil. c. 7. p. 938. (ap. 
Bevereg. t. 2. part. 1. p. 58 f.) ’Exet- 
νοι δὲ λέγονται παραδοθῆναι τῷ Σα- 
τανᾷ, οἱ χωριζόμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας 
τῶν πιστῶν" οἱ γοῦν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον 
χρόνον ἀφορισθέντες, ὡσανεὶ τῷ Σα- 
tava παρεδόθησαν. 

40 Ibid. (ap. Bevereg. ibid. p. 59c.) 
Τινὲς μὲν οὖν δαίμονι κάτοχον γενέσθαι 
τὸν πορνεύσαντα λέγουσι᾽ τινὲς δὲ, 
νόσου μάστιγι ἐκδοθῆναι" καί τοι ἐξ 
αὐτῶν πρὸς Κορινθίους Ἐπιστολῶν λυ- 
ομένου τοῦ ἀμφιβόλου, καὶ δηλουμένου, 
ὅτι τὸ παραδοθῆναι τῷ Σατανᾷ ἀφορι- 
σθῆναι ἐστί, κ.τ.λ. 


XVI. ii 


110 Administration of 


Others are of opinion, that besides this spiritual punishment 
naturally consequent to excommunication, there was in the 
Apostles’ days another consequent of it, which was corporal 
power and possession, or the infliction of bodily vexations and 
torments by the ministry of Satan on those who were delivered 
unto him. Dr. Hammond, and Grotius, and Lightfoot, are the 
great supporters of this opinion among the moderns, and they 
have almost the general concurrence of the ancient interpreters 
on their side; which Estius does not much deny, though he 
chose to follow Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and the ordinary 
gloss against them. He owns St. Chrysostom and the Greeks 
were wholly of this opinion; and among the Latins, St. Am- 
brose and Pacian; and St. Austin also, though not very posi- 
tive, he thinks, in his assertion. But he is mistaken: for St. 
Austin was clearly of this opinion. He does not say, indeed, it 
was death which the Apostle inflicted upon the Corinthian, as 
St. Peter did upon Ananias and Sapphira; but he says ex- 
pressly 47, it was ‘some punishment inflicted on him by the 
ministry of Satan.’ Which he distinguishes from a common ex- 
communication, by the name of flagellum Domini, the scourge 
of the Lord ; which, he says#8, ‘the Apostle used upon some 
special occasions, when there was no way to cure an epidemical 
disease, or correct a single sinner, buoyed up and favoured by 
the multitude, but only by interceding with God to take the 
matter into his own hand, and use the severe mercy of his own 
divine discipline upon them, when the contagion of sin had in- 
vaded a multitude: in which case, it were not only in vain to 
advise men to separate from sinners, but pernicious and sacri- 


legious ; because such counsels 


in such a state of affairs would 


be thought impious and proud, and more tend to disturb good 


47 De Serm. Dom. in Mont. 1. 1. 
c. 20. (t. 3. part. 2. p.194 d.) Et si 
nolunt hic mortem iatelligere, for- 
tasse enim incertum est, quamlibet 
vindictam per Satanam factam ab 
Apostolo fateantur, &c. 

48 Cont. Ep. Parmenian. 1. 3. c. 2. 
(t.9. p. 65 6.) Quid aliud dixit hic, 
Non parcam, nisi quod superius ait, 
Et lugeam muitos : ut luctus ejus im- 
petraret flagellum a Domino, quo illi 
corriperentur, qui jam propter multi- 


tudinem non poterant ita corripi, ut 
ab eorum conjunctione se czeteri con- 
tinerent, et eos erubescere facerent ? 
.... Et revera si contagio peccandi 
multitudinem invaserit, divine dis- 
cipline severa misericordia necessa- 
ria est: nam consilia separationis et 
inania sunt et perniciosa atque sa- 
crilega; quia et impia et superba 
fiunt, et plus perturbant infirmos 
bonos, quam corrigant animosos 
malos. 


δ 15. 


-“ This is the third time I am coming to you. 


the discipline. 111 


‘men that were weak, than correct the stubbornness and animo- 


sity of the evil.’ In this sense he there also in like manner in- 


terprets two other passages of the Apostle: first, 2 Cor. 12, 21. 


* Lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, 
and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and 
have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasci- 
viousness which they have committed.”—and 2 Cor. 13, I. 2. 3. 
In the mouth of 
two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I told 
you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second 
time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore 
have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not 
Spare: since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.” Here, 


he says49, the Apostle does not ‘threaten them with that pu- 


nishment which should make others abstain from their society, 
but by his prayers and tears to turn them over to the divine 
scourge to correct them;’ and that this was the power of Christ 
speaking in him. Where nothing can be plainer, than that St. 
Austin distinguishes this as an extraordinary power from the 
ordinary power of excommunication ; which the Apostle had in 
reserve for such difficult cases, where the ordinary power of 
excommunication, by reason of the multitude or confederacy of 
sinners, would not by its own bare virtue prove effectual. So 
that, according to him, this power of delivering unto Satan 
was something superior to that ordinary power of casting men 
out of the Church, and the society of the faithful. St. Ambrose 
was of the same mind with St. Austin: for, explaining how the 
incestuous man was punished, he says*°, ‘As the Lord gave the 
Deyil no power over the soul of holy Job, but only permitted 
him to afflict his body; so this man was delivered to Satan.’ 
And St. Jerom®! says, ‘ the Apostle commanded him to be put 
under penance for the destruction and vexation of the flesh by 
fasting and sickness, that his spirit might be saved.’ And so 


49 Tbid. (b.).... Per luctum suum 
potius eos divino flagello coercendos 


dedit, sed in carnem ejus permisit 
licentiam, ita et hic traditur Satane. 


minans, quam per illam correptio- 
hem, ut ceteri ab eorum conjuncti- 
one se contineant. 

50 De Peenitent. 1.1. c. 13. (t. 2. 
p- 406 d. n.60.) Sicut Dominus in 
animam sancti Job potestatem non 


5! In Gal. 5. (t.7. p. 489 a.) Pra- 
cepit eum tradi peenitentiz, in 
interitum et vexationem carnis, per 
jejunia et zgrotationes, ut spiritus 
salvus fiat. 


112 XVI. 


Administration of 


Pacianus*?, by the destruction of the flesh, understands tribu- 
lation and infirmities of the body. The Author of the Short 
Notes, under the name of St. Jerom*, says the same. So like- 
wise Cassian°4, to whom Estius himself adds Primasius, and 
Haimo. 

St. Chrysostom, among the Greeks, gives the same sense of 
the Apostle’s words. He says*5, ‘the Apostle delivered the 
Corinthian offender to Satan, as to a schoolmaster, for the de- 
struction of the flesh. As it happened to holy Job, but not for 
the same cause: for there it was done to make his crown of 
glory more illustrious; but here the man only gains remission 
of his sins, that Satan might torture him with some cruel ulcer, 
or other disease.’ And he observes how the Apostle says else- 
where, that such diseases were sometimes inflicted on sinners 
immediately by the hand of God: when we suffer such things, 


52 Ep.3. ad Sempronian..ap. Bibl. 329.) Ex quo manifeste perpenditur, 


Patr. t. 3. p. 66. (ap. Galland. t. 7. 
p- 267 d.) Deinde vides quod hic ipse 
peccator incestus non morti traditur, 
sed Satanz ad emendandum, ad co- 
lophizandum, ad peenitendum..... 
Ad interitum carnis, non tamen ani- 
mz, non etiam spiritus, sed ad so- 
lius carnis interitum, tentationes sci- 
licet, carnis angustias, detrimenta 
membrorum. 

πα (Ὅτ. 5, Ὁ, {{Ὲ11- p: 912 a2) 
Ut arripiendi illum corporaliter ha- 
beat potestatem. Quod cum viderit 
se nec carnis hic, nec in futuro spi- 
ritus requiem habiturum, de facto 
peeniteat, ut salvetur. Sive sic quis- 
que pro meritis suis de ecclesia pel- 
litur, Satan traditur potestati: ut, 
dum caro ejus per peenitentiam af- 
flicta quemdam interitum patitur, 
spiritus conservetur. 

54 Collat. 7. c. 25. (p. 326.) Cor- 
poraliter traditos Satane, vel infir- 
mitatibus magnis etiam viros sanctos 
novimus pro levissimis quibusque 
delictis, &e.—C. 27. (p. 328.) Diro 

confestim est traditus Demoni, ut 
humanas egestiones ori suo ab eo 
suppletus ingereret. Quod flagel- 
lum purgationis gratia se Dominus 
intulisse, ne scilicet in eo vel mo- 
mentanei delicti macula resideret, ve- 
locitate curationis ejus atque auctore 
remedii demonstravit.—C. 28. (p. 


non debere eos abominari vel despi- 
ci, quos videmus diversis tentationi- 
bus, sive istis nequitiz spiritibus 
tradi; quia duo hee credere immo- 
biliter nos oportet: primo, quod sine 
Dei permissu nullus ab eis omnino 
tentetur: secundo quod omnia, que 
a Deo nobis inferuntur, sive tristia 
ad preesens seu leta videantur, velut 
a pilssimo patre clementissimoque 
medico pro nostris utilitatibus irro- 
gentur: et idcirco eos velut peda- 
gogis traditos humiliari, ut disce- 
dentes ex hoc mundo, vel purgatio- 
res ad vitam aliam transferantur, vel 
pena leviore plectantur, qui secun- 
dum Apostolum traditi sunt in pre- 
senti Satanze in interitum carnis, ut 
spixitus salvus fiat in die Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi. 

59 Hom. 15. in 1 Cor. p. 451. (t. 
10. p. 127 c.)... Ὥσπερ voor 
τὸν τοιοῦτον παραδιδούς.. .Eis ὄλε- 
θρον τῆς σαρκός" ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ _ba- 
Kapiou "Tops γέγονεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπὲρ 
τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως" ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ 
ὑπὲρ στεφάνων λαμπροτέρων, ἐνταῦθα 
δὲ ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτημάτων λύσεως" ἵνα 
μαστίξῃ αὐτὸν ἕλκει πονηρῷ, ἢ νόσῳ 
ἑτέρᾳ. Καὶ μὴν ἀλλαχοῦ φησιν, Ἵ Ore 
ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου κρινόμεθα ταῦτα πά- 
oxovres’ ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα μᾶλλον καθά- 
ψασθαι θέλων, τῷ Σατανᾷ παραδί- 
δωσι. 





the discipline. 113 


we are judged of the Lord; but here he delivers him to Satan, 
the more sensibly to touch and affect him. He gives the same 
exposition of the Apostle’s words concerning Hymenzus and 
Philetus, “‘ Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may 
learn not to blaspheme.” ‘As executioners,’ says he ὅ6, ‘ though 
they be very wicked themselves, are made instruments of chas- 
tising others: so here it is with the wicked devils. Job was 
thus delivered to Satan, not for his sins, but to obtain the 
greater glory.’ He adds, ‘that God often did this immediately 
by his own power, without the intervention of any human min- 
istry. For many times the priests know not who are sinners, 
or who are unworthy partakers of the holy mysteries: there- 
fore God takes the judgment into his own hands, and delivers 
them unto Satan. For when diseases, or misfortunes, or sor- 
rows, or calamities, or any thing of the like kind befalls men, 
it is for this reason, as St. Paul also intimates, saying, “ For 
this cause many are sick and weak among you, and many 
sleep.” Theodoret follows Chrysostom in his exposition: for, 
speaking of Hymenzus and Alexander, he says*’, ‘ the Apostle 
delivered them to Satan, as to a cruel executioner; for being 
separated from the body of the Church, and left destitute of 
divine grace, they were cruelly tormented*by the adversary, 
falling into diseases, and sufferings, and other evils and calami- 
ties, which the Devil is wont to inflict upon men.’ 

Now this being the general sense of the Ancients, both 
Greek and Latin, that this was an extraordinary apostolical 
power, distinct from the ordinary power of excommunication, 
we do not find that they ordinarily made use of this phrase, 


56 Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. Ρ. 1547. (t. συμφοραὶ συμβαίνωσιν, ὅταν adda τι- 


II. p.576¢. )” Ὥσπερ οἱ δήμιοι μυρίων 
γέμοντες κακῶν τοὺς ἄλλους σωφρονί- 
ζουσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἐπὶ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ δαίμονος. — Ibid. infra. 
(p. 577. a.) Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Ἰὼβ παρε- 
δόθη τῷ Σατανᾷ" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος οὐχ 
ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ πλεί- 
ovos εὐδοκιμήσεως. Πολλὰ τοιαῦτα 
γίνεται, καὶ νῦν" ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οἱ ἱερεῖς 
οὐ πάντας ἴσασι τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς, καὶ 
ἀναξίως τῶν μυστηρίων μετέχοντας, ὁ 

Θεὸς πολλάκις τοῦτο ποιεῖ, καὶ παρα- 
δίδωσιν αὐτοὺς τῷ Σατανᾷ. Ὅταν γὰρ 
νόσοι, ὅταν ee ὅταν πένθη Kat 


BINGHAM, VOL. V 


va τοιαῦτα, διὰ τοῦτο γένεται. Kat 
τοῦτο ὁ Παῦλος δηλοῖ, οὕτω λέγων, 
Διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς, 
καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί. 

57 In 1 Tim. 1, 20. (ἔν 3. part. 1 
p- 646. ) Τῷ διαβόλῳ... .... παρέδωκε 
τούτους ὡς δημίῳ πικρῷ" .... τοῦ γὰρ 
ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ σώματος χωρισθέντες, 
καὶ τῆς θείας χάριτος γυμνωθέντες, πι- 
κρὰς παρὰ τοῦ δυσμενοῦς ἐδέχοντο 
μάστιγας, καὶ νόσοις καὶ παθήμασι 
χαλεποῖς περιπίπτοντες, καὶ ζημίαις, 
καὶ συμφοραῖς ἑτέραις. 


114 Administration of 


XVI. ii 


delivering unto Satan, in any of their forms of excommunica- 
tion; as being sensible that the Church, after the power of 
miracles was ceased, had no pretence to the power of inflicting 
bodily diseases, as the Apostles had, upon excommunicate per- 
sons by the ministry of Satan. Cassian°* indeed tells us, that 
he knew several holy men that were corporally delivered to 
Satan, and to great infirmities, for small offences. But that 
was by the immediate hand of God, and his chastisements, and 
not by the censures of the Church, which did not excommuni- 
cate holy men, nor any others, for small offences. The author 
of the Life of St. Ambrose 59 says also, ‘that he, having to deal 
with a very flagitious sinner, said he ought to be delivered to 
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that no one may dare 
to commit such things for the future. And he had no sooner 
spoken the word, but immediately, the very same moment, an 
unclean spirit seized the man, and began to tear him.’ But 
this, if true, was a singular instance of apostolical and miracu- 
lous power yet remaining in St. Ambrose, and there is scarce 
a parallel instance to be met with in all the history of the 
Church. The Canons of old very rarely used this phrase. 
St. Basil © mentions it once, and Gratian® cites an Epistle of 
Pope Pelagius, where it is said, ‘ By the example of apostolical 
authority, we have learned to deliver unto Satan erring spirits, 
which draw others into error, that they may learn not to blas- 
pheme.’ But in these places it seems to mean no more than 
excommunication or expulsion out of the Church, which is the 
spiritual delivering up to Satan, without any regard to bodily 
torture. For all men are sensible, that since the Apostles’ days 
there was no such power generally granted to the ministers of 
the Church. And for this reason, Peter de Moulin® tells us, 


58 Collat. 7. c. 25. See n. 54, 188. Canonic. Prim.] (CC. t. 2. p. 


preceding. 

59 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. (t. 2. 
prefix. append. p. 12 a.n. 43.).... 
Cum deprehendisset auctorem tanti 
flagitii, ait, Oportet illum tradi Sa- 
tanz in interitum carnis, ne talia 
aliquis in posterum audeat admit- 
tere. Quem eodem momento, cum 
adhuc sermo esset in ore sacerdotis 
[sancti] spiritus immundus correp- 
tum [4]. arreptum] discerpere ccepit. 

60 C. 7. [ap. Oper. Basil. Ep. 


1724 Ὁ.) Σχεδὸν yap ὅλην γενεὰν 
ἀνθρώπου παρεδόθησαν τῷ Σατανᾷ, 
ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ ἀσχημονεῖν. 

61 Pelagius ap. Gratian. caus. 24. 
quest. 3. c. 13. (t. τ τ. 
58.) Apostolicee auctoritatis exem- 
plo didicimus errantium et in er- 
rorem mittentium spiritus tradendos 
esse Satane, ut blasphemare dedis- 
cant. 

62 Molinzi Vates, seu De bonis 
malisque Prophetis. 1. 2. ¢. 11. (p. 


the discipline. 115 


15, 16. 


‘the reformed Church of France in their national Synod of Alez, 
at which he himself assisted as moderator, anno 1620, made an 
order, that in excommunication no one should use the form of 
delivering unto Satan. Neither should the censure of ana- 
thema maranatha! be pronounced against any man; foras- 
much as no one ought to use that form, but he that knows the 
secrets of reprobation, and can tell by the revelation of God’s 
Spirit, whether the person excommunicated has sinned against 
the Holy Ghost, or [has sinned] the sin unto death, that is, 
with such impenitency as will be final, and continue unto 
death; for which, St. John says, no one ought to pray.’ The 
prohibition here of the use of the form anathema marana- 
tha! leads us to another inquiry,—what the Ancients un- 
derstood by it? and whether they used it at any time as a 
form of excommunication ἵ 

16. Anathema is a word that occurs frequently in the an- 
cient canons, and the condemnation of all heretics. The Council 
of Gangra closes every one of its canons with the words ’Avd- 
θεμα ἔστω. Let him be anathema, or accursed ! that is, sepa- 
rated from the communion of the Church and its privileges, 
and from the favour of God, without repentance, that goes 
against the tenour of the thing there decreed. And this is sige RS 
the style of most other Councils, grounded upon that form of jn the 
St. Paul, “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other sneer 
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, 
let him be anathema, or accursed.” [Gal. 1, 8.] But the add- 
ing of maranatha to anathema is not so common. 

There is little said of the word itself among the Ancients®, 





What 
meant by 
anathemu 
maranu- 
tha! and 
whether 
any such 
forms of 
excommu- 


and less of its use in any form of excommunication. 


114.) Prudenter igitur cautum est, 
a Synodo nationali Alensi, ne quis 
deinceps in excommunicationibus 
utatur hae loquendi formula, tra- 
dendi Satane, nec vibret in quen- 
quam anathema maranatha, ... que 
ab eis solis vibrari potest, qui norunt 
arcana reprobationis, et Deo reve- 
lante sciunt, an qui excommunica- 
‘tur, peccet in Spiritum Sanctum, 
aut peccato ad mortem, id est, im- 
peenitentia ad mortem usque dura- 
tura, pro quo peccato Johannes ne- 
gat orandum esse. (1 Joh. 5, 16.) 
® Gratian, Caus. 23. quest. 4. 


St. Chry- 


c. 30., mentions it as used in a form 
of excommunication by Pope Syl- 
verius. (t. 1. p. 1316. 34.) Ego ta- 
men propterea non dimisi, nec di- 
mitto officium meum, sed cum epi- 
scopis, quos congregare potui, eos, 
qui talia erga me egerunt, anathe- 
matizavi, et una cum illis apostolica 
et synodali auctoritate statui, nul- 
lum unquam taliter decipiendum, 
sicut deceptus sum: et si aliquis 
deinceps ullum unquam episcopo- 
rum taliter deceperit, anathema 
maranatha, fieret in conspectu Dei 
et sanctorum angelorum. 
I2 


116 Administration of 


sostom says it is a Hebrew word, signifying 7’he Lord is come! 
and he particularly applies it to the confusion of those who still 
abused the privileges of the Gospel, notwithstanding that the 
Lord was come among them. ‘This word,’ says he®, ‘speaks 
terror to those who make their members the members of an 
harlot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered to 
idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who deny 
the resurrection. The Lord of all is come down among us; 
and yet ye continue the same men ye were before, and per- 
severe in your sins.’ St. Jerom® says it was more a Syriac 
than a Hebrew word, though it had something in it of both 
languages, signifying Our Lord is come! But he applies it 
against the perverseness of the Jews, and others who denied 
the coming of Christ: making this the sense of the Apostle, 
‘If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be ana- 
thema! The Lord is come. Wherefore it is superfluous for 
any to contend with pertinacious hatred against him, of the 
truth of whose coming there is such apparent.demonstration.’ 
The same sense is given by Hilary the deacon and Pelagius 


XVI.i 


who wrote under the names of St. Ambrose and St. Jerom 57 ; 


64 Hom. 44. in 1 Cor. p. 718. (t. 
10. p. 410 b.)....’Avdbeua. Av ἑνὸς 
τούτου ῥήματος πάντας ἐφόβησε, τοὺς 
τὰ μέλη αὐτῶν ποιοῦντας πόρνης μέ- 
An, τοὺς σκανδαλίζοντας τοὺς ἀδελ- 
φοὺς διὰ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, τοὺς ἀπ᾽ 
ἀνθρώπων ὀνομαζομένους, τοὺς τῇ 
ἀναστάσει διαπιστοῦντας ἐν τυ Μαρα- 
ναθά. Τίνος ἕνεκεν τοῦτο ἘΠ, ον: 3 τὶ 
δήποτε καὶ ἑἙβραΐδι φωνῇ: ἐπειδὴ 
πάντων τῶν κακῶν ὁ τῦφος αἴτιος ἦν. 

. Καταστέλλων αὐτῶν τὸν τῦφον, 
οὐδὲ “Ἑλλάδι Ki γλώσσῃ, ἀλλὰ 
τῇ Ἑβραϊδι. . Τί δέ ἐστι μαραναθά; ; 
Ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἦλθε. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν 
αὐτὸ τοῦτό φησι : τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας 
βεβαιῶν λόγον, ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα τὰ 
σπέρματα τῆς ἀναστάσεως συντέθει- 
κεν" οὐ τοῦτο δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκεί- 
νους ἐντρέπων. ᾿Ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, Ὃ κοι- 
νὸς πάντων Δεσπότης καταβῆναι τοσ- 
ovrov κατηξίωσε, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τοῖς 
αὐτοῖς ἐστε, καὶ ἐπιμένετε ἁμαρτά- 
νοντες. 

65 Ep. 137. [4]. 26.] ad Marcel- 
lam. (t. 1. p.131 Ὁ.) Maranatha ma- 
gis Syrum est quam Hebraeum: ta- 
men etsi ex confinio utrarumque 


linguarum aliquid et Hebrzeum so- 
nat, et interpretatur, Dominus noster 
venit: ut sit sensus, Si quis non 
amat Dominum Jesum Christum 
anathema sit ; et illo completo de- 
inceps inferatur, Dominus noster ve- 
nit: Quod superfluum sit adversum 
eum odiis pertinacibus velle conten- 
dere, quem venisse jam constet. 

66 In 1 Cor. 16. [v. 22.] (Ed. Pa- 
ris. 1661. t. 3. p. 410.) Maranatha 
magis Syrum est quam Hebreum: 
tamen ex sermone utrarumque lin- 
guarum aliquid Hebreeum sonat et 
interpretatur, Dominus noster venit. 
[The Benedictine (t. 2. append. p. 
170 c.) reads the passage thus,— 
Quod interpretatur; Si quis Domi- 
num Jesum, qui venit, non amat, 
abscidatur. Maranatha enim Do- 
minus venit significat. Hoe propter 
Judzos, qui Jesum non venisse di- 
cebant: hi ergo anathema sunt a 
Domino, qui venit. Ep. ] 

67 In 1 Cor. 16. (t. 11. p. 950 b.) 

. Interpretatur, Dominus noster 
venit. 


the discipline. 117 
and it is received by Estius and Dr. Lightfoot as the truest 
interpretation. So that, according to this sense, maranatha ! 
could not be any part of the form of excommunication, but 
only a reason for pronouncing anathema! against those who 
expressed their hatred against Christ, by denying his coming ; 
either in words, as the Jews did, who blasphemed Christ, and 
ealled Jesus anathema, or accursed; or else by wicked works, 
as those who lived profanely under the name of Christian. 

Yet others of the Ancients interpret it of the future coming 
of Christ. As St. Austin 65 says maranatha is a Syriac word, 
signifying The Lord will come. And he particularly applies 
it against the Arians, who could not be said to love the Lord, 
because they denied his divine nature. Dr. Hammond and 
many other modern interpreters ©? take maranatha in this 
sense, The Lord will come to judgment, as St. Jude says, 
“The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute 
judgment upon all the ungodly.” And they suppose this an- 
swered to the third and highest degree of excommunication 
among the Jews, called shammatha. For they say the Jews 
had these three degrees of excommunication, niddui, cherem, 
and shammatha. Niddui was the lowest degree of excommu- 
nication, being only a suspension of the sinner from the syna- 
gogue and society of his brethren for thirty days, if he re- 
pented: if not, the time was doubled to sixty days; and if he 
still continued obstinate, it was prolonged to ninety days. 
Then if he persisted impenitent still, he was punished with a 
more solemn excommunication called cherem, which answers 
to anathema, or cursing, because the sinner was cast out with 
solemn execrations out of the law of Moses. The third species, 


Jligatio, a familiari consortio, ad 4. 
passus. 2. 07M, herem, quod so- 
lemnius erat, cum execrationibus 


68 Ep. 178. sive Altercatio cum 
Pascentio. [al. Ep. 20. append. ] 
(Ὁ. 2. append. p. 44.) Anathema 


Greco sermone dixit, Condemna- 
tus: Maranatha definivit, Donec 
Dominus redeat.. .. Non ergo recte 
dicitur Dominum amare, qui Domi- 
ni et Dei unius audet substantiam 
Separare, &c. 

69 Vid. Poli Synops. Criticor. in 
1 Cor. 16, 22. (t. 5. p. 249. 36.) 
Tres erant apud Judzos anathe- 
matis, sive excommunicationis spe- 
cies: 1. 712, niddui, hoc est, pro- 


additis e lege Mosis, quo utebantur 
in eum, qui monitus non resipisce- 
bat. 4. Ἐπ Ὁ, samatha, quod hic 
maranatha. ΠΙᾺ autem Ὁ νὰ- 
rie ἐτυμολογίζουσι, vel 1. TD dv, 
abi mors, vel 2. ΝῸὉ Ὁ NIN, erit 
desolatio, vel 3. SMS Dw, Nomen, 
i.e. Jehova, sive Dominus, venit.— 
Otho, Lexic. Rabbin. (p. 181.) Ter- 
tia excommunicationis species et 
omnium gravissima, &c. 


Whether 
excommu- 
nication 
was ever 
pronounced 


118 Administration of XVI.i 


called shammatha, was the most severe, when a sinner, after 
all human means had in vain been tried upon him, was con- 
signed over totally and finally to the divine judgment as a 
desperate and irrecoverable sinner. The word shammatha is 
upon this account said to signify either There is death! or, 
There shall be desolation! or, The Lord cometh! which last 
origination of the word answers to maranatha. Now, from 
this analogy and similitude of the name, these learned men 
suppose this form of excommunication was taken into the 
Christian Church under the name of maranatha. But there 
is this grand objection against the thing, that Chrysostom and 
St. Jerom, and the rest that have been mentioned, did not so 
understand it. Besides, that no such word as maranatha ever 
occurs In any ancient form of excommunication. 

But still the question may be put further, Whether they had 
any such excommunication, be the name or form what it would, 
as was total, final, and irrevocable; so as utterly to exclude 
sinners from the communion of the Church without hopes of 
recovery ; and so as to make the Church wholly cease to pray 
for them, or rather pray that God would take them out of the 
world, and thereby deliver his Church from the malice of their 
attempts, and power of their seduction? This question con- 
sists of several parts, and therefore as it is proposed so it must 
be answered with some distinction. For first, there is nothing 
more certain than that the Church did sometimes pronounce a 
total, final, and irreversible sentence of excommunication against 
some more heious criminals, keeping them under penance all 
their lives, and denying them her external peace and commu- 
nion at the hour of death for example and terror; yet not 
precluding them the mercy of God, nor denying them the 
benefit of her prayers, but encouraging them to hope for fayour 
upon their true repentance at God’s final and unerring judg- 
ment. In this sense, I say, it is most certain the Church did 
many times make her sentence of excommunication irreversible, 
as will be shown more fully hereafter. [in the course of the 
seventeenth Book. ] 

17. But secondly, it is not so apparent that the Church was 
used to join execration to her censures, and devote men to 
temporal destruction by utterly refusing to pray for them, or 


withexecra- rather praying against them, that God would take them out 


the discipline. 119 


of the world, and deliver his Church by that means from their base ced 
malicious power and machinations of seducement. Grotius7° sinner to 


temporal 


thinks this was very rarely done, but yet that there are some 7uPut 


examples of it. For when Julian added to his apostasy devilish 
designs of rooting out the Christian religion, the Church used 
this weapon of extreme necessity, and God heard her prayers. 
He reckons this was done in imitation of the Jewish shamma- 
tha. For among the Jews, he says a little before, if any fell 
into enormous crimes, and drew many after them, they did not 
use the common anathema against them, but that more dreadful 
and tremendous one, which they called shammatha, and the 
Apostle after them, in the same sense, maranatha. For 
maranatha signifies The Lord cometh! And by that word 
prayer is made unto God7!, that he would speedily take away 
the malefactor and seducer out of the world. An example of 
which sort of anathema, he thinks, is given by the Apostle, 
when he says, “I would that they were even cut off that 
trouble you.” (Gal. 5, 12.) 

The learned Dr. Hickes in this matter joins entirely with 
Grotius, seeing no other way to account for the many prayers 
made by the ancient Christians for Julian’s destruction. Some 
indeed fasted and prayed for his repentance and conversion, as 
supposing he might be recovered from his error. Thus he 
tells us7?2 out of Sozomen?*, how Didymus of Alexandria 
prayed for him. But others absolutely prayed for his destruc- 
tion, as thinking him utterly incapable of repentance, and that 
he had sinned the sin unto death, for which it was in vain to 
pray. Then he goes on to show the nature of his apostasy, 
his deyotedness to the Devil, and his spite to Christ and the 
Christians: from whence he concludes’‘, it was reasonable for 


Seam ime. 6, 22. (t.2. v.1. p. 
379-36.) Hujus sane rarior est usus, 
non tamen nullus. Nam in Julianum, 
cum defectioni adderet machina- 
tiones evertendi Christianismi, usa 
est ecclesia isto extreme necessita- 
tis telo, et a Deo est exaudita. 

71 Ibid. (p. 378. ad col. dextr. 
summ.) Ea voce oratur Deus ut 
quamprimum talem maleficum et 
seductorem tollat ex hominum nu- 
mero. Hujus anathematis exem- 


plum est, Gal. 5, 12. 

72 Answer to Julian, ch. 6. (p.140.) 

78. L. 6. c. 2. (t. 2.p.219. 44.) Kar’ 
ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ Δίδυμος, ὁ 
ἐκκλησιαστικὸς φιλόσοφος, ἐν ᾿Αλεξ- 
ανδρείᾳ διατρίβων, οἷά γε τοῦ βασι- 
λέως εἰς τὴν θρησκείαν διασφαλέντος, 
περίλυπος ὧν, διά τε αὐτὸν ὡς πεπλα- 
νημένον, καὶ διὰ τὴν καταφρόνησιν τῶν 
ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐνήστευέ τε, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν 
περὶ τούτου ἱκέτευεν. 


74 Hickes, ibid. (p. 143.) 


120 Adininistration of 


the Christians to look upon him as irrecoverable out of the 
snare of the Devil, and upon that supposition to pray for his 
destruction. He adds7* several other arguments to show the 
reasonableness of their presumption that Julian had a diabolical 
malice against Christ, and that he was one of those irrecoyer- 
able apostates, who had trodden under foot the Son of God, 
and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sane- 
tified, an unholy thing, and who had done despite to the Spirit 
of grace. He had hardened his heart against divine miracles, 

hke Pharaoh, and therefore it 1s no wonder if some of them 
— called76 for the plagues of Egypt upon him. He reproached 
the living God, like Sennacherib, and that made some of them, 
hke Hezekiah 77, to beseech God to bow down his ear and hear, 
and to open his eyes and see how Julian reproached the Son 
of God; and thereupon to say, ‘O Lord our God, we beseech 
thee to save us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the 
earth may know that thou art the Lord God, and that Jesus, 
whom Julian doth-so reproach, is thy Son and Christ.’ Gre- 
gory’ says he designed worse things against the Christians 
than Diocletian, Maximian, or Maximinus ever did; that he 
was Jeroboam, Pharaoh, Ahab, and Nebuchadnezzar all in one; 
Jeroboam in apostasy, Pharaoh in hardness of heart, Ahab in 
cruelty, and Nebuchadnezzar in sacrilege; and therefore it is 
not to be wondered that the Christians, who had such good 
reason to despair of the conversion of such a complicate tyrant 
prayed for his destruction, because there was no other appa- 
rent way of delivering the Church. And if it should please God 
for our sins to plague the Church with such a spiteful enemy 


75 Ibid. (p. 151.) 


Μαξιμῖνος, 6 μετ᾽ ἐκείνους καὶ ὑπὲρ 
76 Vid.Greg.Nazianzen.[Orat. 4. | 


> , , -~ > -~ 
ἐκείνους διώκτης... .Tadra ἐκεῖνος διε- 


XVI. 


Invect. 2. in Julian. (τ. τ. p. 124 ἃ.) 
Τὴν ῥομφαίαν τε mpoexadovpeba, καὶ 
τὰς Αἰγυπτιακὰς μάστιγας, καὶ δικά- 
σαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δίκην ἠξιοῦμεν, καὶ 
διαναστῆναί ποτε διεκελευόμεθα κατὰ 
τῶν ἀσεβῶν. κ.τ.λ. 

77 Tbid. (pp. 123 b. seqq.) ‘O μὲν 
δὲ οὖν τοῦ ᾿Ιούδα βασιλεὺς ‘E€exias, 
Kets 

78 [Orat. 3,] Invect. τ. (ibid. 
p-93 d.)*A μήτε Διοκλητιανὸς ὁ πρῶ- 
τος ἐνυβρίσας Χριστιανοῖς, μήτε ὁ 
τοῦτον ἐκδεξάμενος καὶ ὑπερβαλὼν 
Μαξιμιανὸς, ἐνεθυμήθη πώποτε, μήτε 


νοεῖτο μὲν, ὡς οἱ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ἐκεί- 
νου κοινωνοὶ, καὶ μάρτυρες.--- Orat. 
4.1] Invect. 2. (p. 110 4.) Ἱεροβοὰμ 
> ° 5 ΄ a? ‘ A > 
εἰπεῖν, οἰκειότερον, ἢ AyaaB τὸν “Io- 
ραηλίτην, τοὺς παρανομωτάτους, ἢ 
‘ A > am a 
Φαραὼ τὸν Αἰγύπτιον,  NaBovxodo- 
νόσορ τὸν ᾿Ασσύριον, ἢ πάντα ταῦτα 
συνελόντες, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὀνομά- 
comer" ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰς πάντων κακίας εἰς 
c ‘ , , > 
ἑαυτὸν συλλεξάμενος φαίνεται, Ἴερο- 
βοὰμ τὴν ἀποστασίαν, ᾿Αχαὰβ τὴν 
μιαιφονίαν, Φαραὼ τὴν σκληρότητα, 
Ναβουχοδονόσορ τὴν ἱεροσυλίαν, πάν- 
τῶν ὁμοῦ τὴν ἀσέβειαν. 


7. the discipline. 12] 
of Christ, and suffer a popish Julian indeed to reign over us, 
‘T here declare,’ says he, ‘ that I should believe him incapable 
of repentance, and upon that supposition should be tempted to 
pray for his destruction, as the only means of delivering the 
Church. Thus far that learned man in his account of the 
practice of the primitive Christians, and their reasons in praying 
for the destruction of Julian the Apostate. 

To this may be added what St. Jerom79 says upon the death 
of Julian, that the Church of Christ with exultation sung her 
thanks to God in the words of the Prophet, according to the 
Septuagint, “ Thou hast even to our astonishment divided the 
heads of the powerful.” Which is also noted by Theodoret*°, 
who says the people of Antioch, as soon as they heard of 
Julian’s death, kept public feasts and holidays for joy, and not 
only in their churches, but in their theatres proclaimed the 
victory of the cross, exposing the Heathen prophecies to ridi- 
cule, particularly those of one Maximus a magician, whom he 
had consulted : ‘ O foolish Maximus, where are now thy pro- 
phecies? God and his Christ have overcome.’ So again he 
{6 1551 us of one Julianus Saba, who had it revealed to him in 
his prayers that Julian was slain: upon which ‘ he immediately 
changed his tears into joy, and put on a cheerful countenance, 
expressing the inward satisfaction of his mind. Which the 
by-standers observing, desired to know the reason of his sudden 
change, and he told them that the wild boar who laid waste 


79In Hab. 3. 14. (t.6. p. 660d.).. 
Ecclesia Christi cum exultatione 
cantavit Divisisti in stupore capita 
potentium, [ Διέκοψας ἐν ἐκστάσει 


κεφαλὰς δυναστῶν, κιτ.λ. Ed. Lam- 


81 [bid. c.24.(p. 142. 19.)Kar’ ἐκεί- 

A c ΄ A > ~ > ΄ 
νην τὴν ἡμέραν. καθ᾽ ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἐδέξατο 
τὴν sisal οὗτος ταύτην προσευχό- 
μενος ἔγνω: . Φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν ποτνιώ- 
μενον καὶ τὸν φιλάνθρωπον ἀντιβο- 


bert. Bos, Franequer. 1709.—Au- 
thorized version, Thou didst strike 
through with his staves the head of 
his Lomaniges, §c. Ep.] 
 L. 3. δι 55. (ν.2. Pp. 144. 11.) 
Ἢ δὲ ᾿Αντιόχου πόλις, τὴν ἐκείνου 
μεμαθηκυῖα σφαγὴν, δημοθοινίας ἐπε- 
τέλει καὶ πανηγύρεις" καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν 
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐχόρευον, καὶ τοῖς 
μαρτύρων σηκοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς 
θεάτροις τοῦ σταυροῦ τὴν νίκην ἐκή- 
ρυττον, καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνου μαντεύμασιν 
ἐπετώθαζον... . Κοινῇ γὰρ πάντες ἐβό- 
ὧν, Ποῦ σου τὰ μαντεῖα, Μάξιμε μωρέ; 5 
ἐνίκησεν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτοῦ. 


λοῦντα “Δεσπότην, ἐπισχεῖν μὴν ἐξα- 
πίνης τὴν τῶν δακρύων φοράν' διαχυ- 
θῆναι δὲ καὶ θυμηδίας πλησθῆναι, καὶ 
γανωθῆναι. τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ τοῦτο 
μηνύσαι τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡδονήν. Ταύ- 
τὴν οἱ συνηθέστεροι τὴν μεταβολὴν 
αὐτοῦ θεασάμενοι, μηνύσαι σφίσιν 
ἱκέτευσαν τῆς εὐφροσύνης τὴν ἀφορ- 
μήν" ὁ δὲ τὸν σῦν ἔφη τὸν ἄγριον, τὸν 
τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος τοῦ θείου πολέμιον, 
δίκας εἰσπεπρᾶχθαι τῶν εἰς τοῦτον 
ἀδικημάτων, καὶ κεῖσθαι νεκρὸν, τῆς 
ἐπιβουλῆς πεπαυμένον. Ταῦτα μεμα- 
θηκότες ἐ ἐχόρευον ἅπαντες, καὶ τῷ Θεῷ 
τὸν χαριστήριον προσέφερον ὕμνον. 


122 Administration of 


the vineyard of the Lord had now suffered punishment for all 
the injuries he had done against the Lord; that he now lay 
dead, and they needed no longer to be afraid of his designs 
against them. Upon which they all leaped for joy, and sung 
praises to God for the victory.’ Now it is probable that they 
who thought it their duty thus to give God thanks for his fall, 
were no less solicitous beforehand to pray for his destruction. 
Their thanksgivings were a declaration what sort of prayers 
they had made, and they could not but rejoice when they were 
heard and answered. 

It is some confirmation of all this, that Socrates says, they 
were used sometimes to cast men out of the Church with exe- 
cration, as he notes*? of one Hermogenes, a Novatian bishop, 
who, for some blasphemous books that he had written, was so- 
lemnly excommunicated, μετὰ κατάρας, with cursing, which in 
all probability denoted something more than the common ana- 
thema that accompanied every excommunication. It is also 
noted by Socrates*?, that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, 
prayed thus against Arius: ‘If the doctrine of Arius be true, 
let me die before the day appointed for our disputation : but if 
the faith which I hold be true, and the doctrine of Arius false, 
let Arius by the time determined suffer the punishment which 
his impiety deserves.’ Which was accordingly fulfilled: for 
Arius the next day voided his entrails with his excrements, 
and so perished by a most ignominious death. The same is 
related by Athanasius, in his Epistle to Serapion +, who says, 
he prayed to God in these words, ρον “Apewov, Take Arius 
out of the world. All which shows that in some special cases 
they made no scruple to devote very malicious and incorrigible 
apostates to extermination and destruction. 


82 L. ΣΉ Ὁ (v.32: 2.) διαχωρήμασιν ἡ ἔδρα τότε παραυτίκα 
7: P- 357: χώρημ ρ ρ 


XVLi 


«Ἑρμογένης, ὃς ἐπὶ ᾿βλασφήμοις 
συγγράμμασιν tm αὐτοῦ μετὰ κατά- 
ρας ἐκκεκήρυκτο. 

88 μι. I. C. 37. (ibid. Ρ- 74- 2.) 
‘H αἴτησις ἢν τοιαύτη" εἰ μὲν ἀληθὴς 
ἡ "Apetov δόξα, ἑαυτὸν τὴν ὡρισμένην 
ἡμέραν τῇ συζητήσει μὴ ὄψεσθαι" εἰ 
δὲ, ἣν αὐτὸς ἔχει πίστιν, ἀληθὴς, 
Δρειον τῆς ἀσεβείας δίκην διδόναι, 
τὸν πάντων αἴτιον τῶν Kakov.—lbid. 


c. 38. (ibid. p. 74. 37.) Καὶ ἅμα τοῖς 


ἐκπίπτει, καὶ αἵματος πλῆθος ἐπηκο- 
λούθει, καὶ τὰ λεπτὰ τῶν ἐντέρων" 
συνέτρεχε δὲ αἷμα αὐτῷ σπληνί τε 
καὶ ἥπατι. Grischov. | 

84 Ep. ad Serapion. de Morte Arii. 
1.1. p. 671. (t. 1. part. τ. p. 270 ὃ.) 
[Athanasius records it as the prayer 
of Alexander in the hearing of Ma- 
carius. See the context, l. c. ἢ. 3. 
Ep. | 





eS νῶν 


17. 


the discipline. 123 


Yet, on the other hand, St. Chrysostom was utterly against 
this practice. For he has a whole Homily upon this point®, 
‘that men ought not to anathematize either the living or the 
dead; they may anathematize their opinions or actions, but 
not their persons.’ Where, as Grotius rightly observes*®, he 
takes anathema in the strictest sense, for praying to God for 
the destruction of ree sinner. Against this he argues from 
these several topics. 1. Because Christ died for all men, for 
his enemies, for tyra ἐν} for magicians, for those that hated 
and crucified him’?. 2. Because the Church, in imitation of 
Christ, daily prays for all men’*. 3. Because the Christian 
religion rather obliges us to lay down our own lives for our 
neighbours, than take away theirs®®. 4. It is usurping upon 
the prerogative of Christ: ‘ for what is such an anathema but 
saying, Let him be given to the Devil, let him have no place of 
salvation; let him be separated from Christ? Who gave thee 
this authority and power? Why dost thou assume the dignity 
of the Son of God, who shall sit in judgment, and set the sheep 
on his right hand, and the goats on his left9°?’ 5. The Apostles 
had no such practice in excommunication. They cast heretics 
out of the Church in such manner as one would pluck out a 
right eye, or cut off a limb, with indications of compassion and 
sorrow. They carefully rebuked and expelled their heresies, 
but did not thus anathematize their persons. 6. It is an absurd 
practice, whether it be used toward the living or the dead. “ If 
toward the living, thou art cruel in so cutting off one, who is 

85 [Hom. 76. de Anathem. (t. 


, , ‘ ~ 
γοήτων, ὑπὲρ μισούντων, ὑπὲρ τῶν 


Ρ. 696 a.) Ta yap aipetixa aie 
Ta παρ᾽ ὧν “παρελάβομεν ἀναθεματί- 
ζειν χρὴ, καὶ τὰ ἀσεβῆ δόγματα ἐλέγ- 
xew" πᾶσαν δὲ φειδῶ ἀνθρώπων ποι- 
εἶσθαι, καὶ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῶν 
σωτηρίας. Grischov. | 

me mec. 6; 22. (t. 2. v.21. p. 
379-31.) Chrysostomus ubi ἀνάθεμα 
pronuntiandum ait adversus facta, 
non adversus homines, intelligit dis- 
trictum illud ἀνάθεμα, quo Deus ro- 
gatur ut aliquem coerceat, vel aliter, 
vel etiam tollendo eum e medio. 

87 Hom. 76. de Anathem. t. 1. 
P- 909. (t. I. p. 692 d.)... Οὐχ ὑπὲρ 

Dov μόνον καὶ ἰδίων ἀποθανὼν, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὑπὲρ ἐχθρῶν, ὑπὲρ τυράννων, ὑπὲρ 


σταυρωσάντων. 

88 Ibid. (6.).... Τούτων τοὺς τύπους 
ἡ ἐκκλησία πληροῖ, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ὑπὲρ 

, ‘4 ec 
πάντων τὰς ἱκετηρίας ποιουμένη. 

89 Τ014. (b. ) 82 Skt γάρ φησιν, 
᾿Αγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυ- 
tov’ ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ θνήσκειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
πλησίου. 

99 Ibid. (p. 693 a.) Τί οὖν ἐστιν, ὃ 
λέγεις ἀνάθεμα ; ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀναθέσθω 
οὗτος διαβόλῳ, καὶ μηκέτι χώραν σω- 
τηρίας ἐχέτω, γενέσθω. ἀλλότριος ἀ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ" καὶ τίς εἶ σὺ ταύτης τῆς 
ἐξουσίας καὶ τῆς μεγάλης δυνάμεως ; 
τότε γὰρ καθίσει Yids τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ 
στήσῃ τὰ μὲν πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν, τὰ 
δὲ ἐρίφια ἐξ εὐωνύμων. 


124 Administration of XVI. 


still in a capacity of turning and changing his life from evil 
to good: if toward the dead, thou art more cruel; because 
now to his own master he stands or falls, and is not under 
any human power®!.’ From all this he concludes %, ‘ that 
we ought only to anathematize the impious and _ heretical 
opinions of men, but to spare their persons, and pray for their 
salvation.’ 

There are some who make a question, whether this is one of 
Chrysostom’s genuine discourses; but without any good rea- 
son; because the matter and style, as Du Pin® observes, argue 
it to be his, and there are other arguments to prove it genuine. 
Sixtus Senensis% and Habertus% think he speaks only against 
private men’s using the anathema against heretics: but it is 
plain he argues against the public as well as private use of it, 
in the sense wherein he takes it, ‘ that doctrines, and not men, 
are to be anathematized: we are to pray for the persons of 
heretics, when we condemn their opinions; and desire their 
conversion and salvation, not their destruction.’ The only thing 
that can truly be inferred from hence is, that St. Chrysostom 
had different sentiments about this matter from some others. 


91 [hid. (b.)...‘Qs τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν patriarche de Constantinople, com- 


τὸν δεξιὸν ἐξορύττοντες, οὕτω τοὺς 
αἱρετικοὺς ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀπέβα- 
λον" ὅπερ ἔνδειξιν @ ἔχει τῆς μεγάλης 
αὐτῶν συμπαθείας καὶ ἀλγηδόνος, ἁ ὡς 
ἐπικαιρίου μέλους γινομένης ἀποκοπῆς 
. Τὰς μὲν αἱρέσεις διήλεγχον καὶ 
ἀπέβαλον, οὐδενὶ δὲ τούτων τῶν αἷρε- 
τικῶν ταύτην ἐπιτιμίαν προσῆγον. 

92 Tbid. (p. 695 c.)* H yap ζ καὶ 
πάρεστιν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ βίῳ τούτῳ, ἢ 
τέθνηκεν, ὃ ὃν ᾿ἀναθεματίζειν προήρησαι. 
Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔτι περίεστιν, ἀσεβεῖς ἀπο- 
κόπτων τὸν ἐν τρεπτότητι ὄντα, καὶ 
μετατεθῆναι δυνάμενον ἐκ τοῦ κακοῦ 
εἰς [τὸ] ἀγαθόν. Εἰ δὲ τέθνηκεν, ποὰλ- 
λῷ μᾶλλον" τί δήποτε: ὅτι τῷ ἰδίῳ 
Κυρίῳ στήκει ἢ πίπτει, οὐκέτι ὑπὸ ἐξ. 
ουσίαν ἀνθρωπίνην τυγχάνων: 

98 [Bibhioth. cent. 5. (t. 3. p. 24.) 
Le discours de PAnathéme est de 
Saint Chrysostome, quoi que quel- 
ques critiques en ayent douté. [1 
est de son stile, il y parle des homi- 
lies de la Nature Incompréhensible 
de Dieu, et il a été cité ily a prés 
de quatre cents ans par Philothée, 


me un ouvrage de Saint Chryso- 
stome. Ep.] 

94 Biblioth. 1. 6. Annotat. 267. 
(t. 2. p. 420 c. 9.) Porro cum tot 
locis Chrysostomus excommunica- 
tionis ecclesiasticze auctoritatem de- 
fendat, verisimile non est, ut mutata 
sententia voluerit eam hoc loco dam- 
nare; sed hoc magis credendum est, 
eum hance homiliam protulisse ad- 
versus quosdam temerarios et in- 
doctos, qui, cum non essent ecclesiz 
pastores, nec ullam haberent ex- 
communicandi potestatem, tamen 
odio et contentione inducti dogma- 
ta, ab ipsis non intellecta, una cum 
auctoribus eorum temere damna- 
bant, et anathemate notabant. 

% Archierat. ad Censur. Pontif. 
observ. 6. (p. 747.) Multa S. Chry- 
sost. Hom. de Anathemate, (t. 1. 
Editionis Ducei,) ubi anathema cui- 
que dici improbat: sed a privatis 
primo : et ab idiotis, ut ibidem ex- 
primit : deinde cum odio in perso- 
nas ipsas et cum dispendio caritatis. 


= 


Ϊ 


17. ii. 1. the discipline. 125 


They thought there were some cases in which it was lawful to 
pray for the destruction of very malicious and incorrigible sin- 
ners, such as Julian, when they were past all hopes, and there 
was no other visible way to save the Church from their hellish 
designs, but by their destruction: he thought there was no 
such case; but that every man was capable of pardon so long 
as he lived in this world, even though he had committed what 
others called the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. 
and the sin unto death, of which he had a different notion from 
what some others had; and therefore that we were to pray for 
every man’s conversion, and not his destruction. 

This, as far as I can judge, was the different sense which 
the Ancients had upon this most difficult matter: and if they 
varied upon the point in so nice a case, it is not much to be 
wondered at, since the Moderns are not agreed upon it, but 
some Churches, as I showed before9® out of Du Moulin, forbid 
all such sort of excommunications, as unfit to be used, without 
a particular revelation. I have stated the matter fairly on both 
sides, and leave the determination to the liberty and discretion 
of every judicious reader. 


CHAP. “19. 


Of the olyects of ecclesiastical censures, or the persons on 
whom they might be injlicied: with a general account 
of the crimes for which they were inflicted. 
1. Havine thus far explained the nature of ecclesiastical All mem- 
: b f the 
censures, and the several kinds of them, we are next to con- ΟΣ ΞΕ 
oa 


sider the objects or persons on whom they might be inflicted, oe ig 
great an 


and the crimes for which they were inflicted on them. ΞΈΡΕΙ τς 
As to the persons or objects of ecclesiastical censure, they C™es>. 
“ made liable 


were all such delinquents as fell into great and scandalous to ecclesias- 
crimes after baptism, whether men or women, priests or peo- pea 
ple, rich or poor, princes or subjects : for the ecclesiastical dis- out excep- 
eipline made no distinction, save when the multitude of sinners sc 
combining together, made it impossible to put church-censures 

in execution, or made it hazardous for fear of doing more harm 


than good by the strict execution of them. Infidels and un- 


“6 See s. 16. n. 62, preceding. 


126 The objects of XVI 


believers were not considered in this matter, as being no mem- 
bers of the Church: according to that rule of the Apostle; 
(1 Cor. 5, 12.) ‘‘ What have I to do to judge them also that are 
without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them 
that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from 
among yourselves that wicked person.” Catechumens were in 
a middle state between Heathens and Christians, only candi- 
dates of baptism, and not yet admitted to full communion by 
the laver of regeneration and adoption of children: and there- 
fore neither were they the proper objects of church-discipline, 
save only as they were capable of being thrust down into a 
lower class of their own order, if they committed any crime 
deserving such a degradation, of which I have given some ac- 
count already!, in speaking of the institution of the catechu- 
mens. Here we take discipline, as respecting only those that 
were called the τέλειοι, perfect communicants, or persons in 
Sull communion with the Church. 


Women 2. In censuring these, the Church made no distinction of 
as well as : - τ τον me 
men. sex or quality. For women were subjected to discipline as well 


as men. Valesius? says, they were very rarely put to do public 
penance ; and Bona? says, never at all for the three first ages, 
but they wept and fasted and did other works of repentance in 
private. And some take that canon of St. Basil+ in this sense, 
where he says, If a woman was convicted of adultery, or con- 
fessed it herself, by the ancient rules she was not to be made 
a public example, δημοσιεύειν οὐκ ἐκέλευσαν of πατέρες. But 
Cyprian and Tertullian and the ancient Canons make no such 
distinction: neither is it probable, that when multitudes both 
of men and women fell openly into idolatry in times of perse- 
cution, that the one did public, and the other private penance 


Be 10. ch,2. 8.17. V9. Ρ' 42: 

2 In Socrat. 1. 5. οι 19. (Vv. 2. p. 
287.n.1.)....Raro enim mulieres 
ad publicam peenitentiam cogeban- 
tur. 

3 Rev. dhitarg.. 1, τὸ Cet ym 
(p. 213.) Muleribus nunquam pub- 
lica peenitentia, saltem primis eccle- 
sia seeculis, imponi solebat; sed 
privatim flebant, jejunabant, et alia 
peenitentiz opera exercebant. 

4 C. 34. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 199. 


Canonic. Secund.] (CC. t. 2. p. 
1741 a.) Tas μοιχευθείσας γυναῖκας, 
καὶ ἐξαγορευούσας dc εὐλάβειαν, ἢ 
ὁπωσοῦν ἐλεγχομένας, δημοσιεύειν 
οὐκ ἐκέλευσαν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν.--- 
[Which is according to the Bene- 
dictine Edition of Basil, Paris. 1730. 
(t. 3. p. 295 b.) Beveridge after 
Balsamon (Pandect. t. 2. p. 93.) 
reads δημοσιεύειν μὲν ἐκώλυσαν for 
δημοσιεύειν οὐκ ἐκέλευσαν, which 
comes to the same thing. Ep.] 





¥ 
Η͂ 


ecclesiastical censures. 12 


i 


only. For Cyprian® never speaks of any but the public eao- 
mologesis, or confession, and public imposition of hands to re- 
concile penitents again after lapsing: and yet there it had been 
proper to have made the distinction between men and women, 
if he had known of any such distinction in the practice of the 
Church. But whether their penance was public or private, the 
case is still the same as to the exercise of discipline upon them. 
For they were certainly excluded from communion, and that 
sometimes for many years, and in some cases even to the hour 
of death, as appears from many canons of the Council of Eh- 


beris.®, Ancyra’, and others. 


5 De Lapsis, p. 128. (p. 97.) Agite 
peenitentiam ea: dolentis ac 
lamentantis animi probate meesti- 
tiam. Nec vos quorundam moveat 
aut error improvidus, aut stupor 
vanus, qui, cum teneantur in tam 
grandi crimine, percussi sunt animi 
cecitate, ut nec intelligant delicta, 
nec plangant. ....Injuste sibi pla- 
centes, et transpuncte mentis alien- 
atione dementes, Domini precepta 
contemnunt, medelam vulneris neg- 
ligunt, agere pcenitentiam nolunt. 
Ante admissum facinus improvidi, 
post facinus obstinati; nec prius 
stabiles, nec postmodum supplices : 
quando debuerant stare, jacuerunt : 
quando jacere ....debent, stare se 
opinantur, &e.— Ep. 10. [al. 16.] 
(Ρ. 195.) Nam cum in minoribus 
peccatis agant peccatores pceniten- 
tiam justo tempore, et secundum 
discipline ordinem ad exomologesin 
veniant, et per manus impositionem 
episcopi et cleri jus communicationis 
accipiant : nunc crudo tempore, per- 
secutione adhuc perseverante, non- 
dum restituta ecclesiz ipsius pace, 
ad communicationem admittuntur, 
et offertur nomen eorum, et, nondum 
penitentia acta, nondum exomolo- 
gesi facta, nondum manu eis ab epi- 
scopo et clero imposita, eucharistia 
illis datur, &e.—{ Vid. Baluz. Not. 
8. ad Hom. τ. Cesar. Arelatens. 
(ap. Bibl. Max. t. 27. p. 340 c. 12.) 
Primum peccator peccata sua confi- 
tebatur coram sacerdote, et eccle- 
siam orabat ut pro se misero pecca- 


And this is a sufficient indica- 


tore oraret, &c.—Conf. n. 6. in ver- 
ba lacrymas effundite, et n. 7. ibid. 
Ep. ] 

6 C.5. (t.1. p. 971 b.) Si qua 
domina, furore zeli accensa, flagris 
verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut 
in tertium diem animam cum cruci- 
atu effundat ; eo quod incertum sit, 
voluntate, an casu occiderit; si vo- 
luntate, post septem annos; si casu, 
post quinquennii tempora, acta legi- 
tima peenitentia, ad communionem 
placuit admittii—C. 8. (ibid. d.) 
Item feemine, que, nulla prece- 


‘dente causa, reliquerint viros suos, 


et se copulaverint alteris, nec in Oe 
accipiant communionem. — C. 
(ibid. e.) Quod si ducitur ab eo, aa 
inculpatam reliquit uxorem, et eum 
scierit habere uxorem, quam sine 
causa reliquit ; placuit, nec in fine 
hujus dari communionem.—C. 12. 
(ibid. p. 972 a.) Mater, vel parens, 
vel quzlibet fidelis, si lenocinium 
exercuerit, eo quod alienum vendi- 
derit corpus, vel potius suum, pla- 
cuit, eas nec in fine accipere com- 
munionem. — Conf. ibid. ce. 13, 
14, 63, 65. 

7 Ὁ. 21. (ibid. p. 1464 b.) Περὶ 
τῶν γυναικῶν. τῶν ἐκπορνευουσῶν, καὶ 
ἀναιρουσῶν τὰ γεννώμενα, καὶ σπου- 
δαζουσῶν φθόρια ποιεῖν, ὁ μὲν πρό- 
τερος ὅρος μέχρις ἐξόδου ἐκώλυσεν" 
καὶ τούτῳ συντίθενται" φιλανθρωπό- 
τερον δέ τι εὑρόντες, ὡρίσαμεν δεκα- 
ετῇ χρόνον κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς τοὺς 
ὡρισμένους. 


128 The objects of XVI. i 


tion of their being liable to ecclesiastical censure, as well as 
men, 

Nay, there are some undeniable instances of women doing 
public penance, as Bona owns, in the time of St. Jerom: for 
he’, speaking of Fabiola, a rich Roman lady, who had divorced 
herself from her first husband for adultery, and married a se- 
cond, says, ‘ that after the death of the second husband, when 
she came to consider the unlawfulness of the fact, she put on 
sackcloth, and made public confession of her. error in the La- 
teran Church, in the sight of all the people of Rome; stand- 
ing in the order of penitents in Lent, and in a penitent garb, 
with her hair dissolved, and her cheeks wan with tears, sub- 
mitting her neck to imposition of hands; the bishop and pres- 
byters and all the people weeping with her.’ This seems to 
have been a voluntary act of penance, as there were many 
such in those days, when men chose to expiate even private 
erimes by public penance; but if it had not been customary at 
all for women to do public penance, St. Jerom would have 
noted the singularity of it in that respect rather than any 
other. But he seems to place the singularity of it in this, that 
she condescended of her own accord to do public penance in a 
case where no laws of the Church could have obliged her to it. 
For whilst her husband lived, no constraint could be laid upon 
her: it being a rule? not to admit married persons to public 
penance without consent of both parties: and when her husband 
was dead, her crime perhaps was one of that nature which did 
not directly bring her under the power of ecclesiastical cen- 
sure, but by her own consent. For, as we shall see more by 
and by, there were many crimes of that nature, which, though 
allowed to be sins of no mean size, yet could not bring men 
against their wills to a course of public penance by any laws of 
the Church. 


8 Ep. 30. [al. 77.] Epitaph. Fa- 
biole. (t. 1. p. 455 d.) Quis hoc cre- 
deret, ut post mortem secundi viri 
in semet ipsam reversa...saccum, 
indueret, ut errorem publice fatere- 
tur, et, tota urbe spectante Romana, 
ante diem Paschz in basilica Later- 
ani...staret in ordine peenitentium, 


episcopo, presbyteris, et omni popule 
collacrymantibus, sparso crine, ora 
lurida, squalidas manus, sordida col- 
la submitteret? 

9 Vid. C. Arelatens. 2. c. 22. (t. 4. 
p. 1013 d.) Poenitentiam conjugatis 
non nisi ex consensu dandam. 


“7g 


ἃ, 3, 4. 


ecclesiastical censures. 129 


3. But where the crimes were flagrant, and such as the The rich as 
Church could take cognizance of, there she usually proceeded trike = 
without respect of persons. No regard was had to the rich commuta- 

=o J . . tion of pe- 
more than the poor, but all criminals were considered alike, in nance al- 
the business of repentance, as equally obliged to comply with peters 
the stated rules of discipline, in order to gain admission into nor favour. 
the Church after an expulsion. There was but one door of re- 
entry, which is so often called justa and legitima penitentia, 
the just and legal penance, by Cyprian!° and other writers" : 
and no commutation was thought an equivalent, where this 
was wanting. Which is evident from this, that they would not 
accept any gifts or oblations from excommunicate persons, or 
heretics, or schismatics, or any that were not in full communion 
with the Church, lest this should look like communicating 
with them before their time, and receiving their money in leu 
of repentance. Cyprian indeed once intimates'!, that there 
were some who for filthy lucre were inclined to accept persons; 
and who, to make a market of unlawful gain, would gratify 
the rich, and those who could give large gifts, to get them 
an easier way of admittance than by the severe and tedious 
way of a just and full penance: but he very sharply inveighs 
against these, and all their sinister arts of dissolving disci- 
pline, and ruining men’s souls, under pretence of granting 
them a fallacious and deceitful peace, which was their real 
destruction. 

4. One of these insidious arts, which they managed with What pri- 
some colour and dexterity, was to get the martyrs and con- ede is 
fessors in prison to intercede with bishops for such, and write upon the 


ν ὃ = P intercession 
letters in their favour. For we must know that anciently the of the mar- 


10 Ep. to. [4]. 16.] ad Cler. p. 37. 
See before, s. 2, the second part of 
n. 5, preceding.—Ep. 62. [al. 4.] p. 
9. (p.174. ad calc.) Si autem de eis 
aliqua corrupta fuerit deprehensa, 
agat peenitentiam plenam, quia que 
hoe crimen admisit, non mariti sed 
Christi adultera est, et ideo estimato 
justo tempore, postea exomologesi 
facta, ad ecclesiam redeat.—De Lap- 
sis, p. 129. (p. 97.) Agite peeniten- 
tiam plenam, &c. 

MC. Eliber. c. 14. (t. 1. p.972¢.) 
δεν... Si alios cognoverint viros, eo 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


quod mechatz sint, placuit, per 
quinquennii tempora, acta legitima 
penitentia, admitti eas ad commu- 
nionem oportere.—C. 3. (ibid. p. 
971 a.) Placuit, in fine eis prestari 
communionem, acta tamen legitima 
penitentia. 

12 See before, ch. 2. s. 13. p. 105. 
and b. 15. ch. 2. 8. 3. v. 5. p. 241. 

13 Ep. 11. [8]. 15.] ad Martyr. 
Ρ. 35. (p- 194.) ...- Qui, personas 
accipientes, in beneficiis vestris aut 
gratificantur, aut illicit negotiatio- 
nis nundinas aucupantur. 


K 


130 The objects of XVI. i 


tyrs in pri- martyrs were allowed this privilege, when any penitent had 
ἘΠ ΤΟΣ Ana Well nigh performed his legal penance, and was near upon 
how this being received again, to write letters to the bishop, that such 
nosey by an one might be admitted to communion, though his full term 
Cyprian. 


of penance was not quite expired. And so far their petition 
was commonly accepted. But these crafty men, for a little 
underhand gain, had got a trick to desire the martyrs to in- 
tercede for such as had done little or no penance: nay, they 
abused their privilege so far, as peremptorily to require the 
admission of such, without any previous examination of their 
merits: and sometimes they required the bishop not only to 
admit such a penitent, but all that belonged to him; which was 
a very uncertain and blind sort of petition, and created great 
envy to the bishop, when perhaps twenty or thirty, or a 
greater number of nameless persons were included in one libel, 
and the bishop was forced to do a very ungrateful office, and 
deny them altogether. Cyprian complains much of these 
abuses, both in his Letter to the Martyrs'4, and in others 
written upon the same subject to his Clergy 15 and People. 
But chiefly he complains of those libels which were sent to 
him by Lucian the Martyr, one of which?® runs in this form : 
‘All the confessors to Cyprian the bishop, greeting: Know 
that we have granted peace to all those, of whom you have 
had an account how they have behaved themselves since the 
commission of their crimes: and we would that these presents 
should be notified by you to the rest of the bishops. We wish 
you to maintain peace with the holy martyrs.’ This Lucian 
had written many such letters before in the name of Paulus, 
the confessor, whilst he was in prison, and others after his 


14 Tbid. (p.ead.) Audio quibusdam 
sic libellos fieri, ut dicatur, Com- 
municet ille cum suis. Quod nun- 


(pp. 196, seqq.) Ep. 18. [al. 26.] ad 
Cler. (pp. 205, seqq.) 
16 Ep. ad Cypr. 17. [al. 23.] (p. 


quam omnino a martyribus factum 
est, ut incerta et cceca petitio invi- 
diam nobis postmodum cumulet. 
Late enim patet quando dicitur, 
Ille cum suis ; et possunt nobis vi- 
ceni, et triceni, et amplius offerri, 
qui propinqui, et affines, et liberti, 
ac domestici esse asseverentur ejus, 
qui accipit libellum. 

15 Ep. ro. [al. 16.] ad Cler. (pp. 
194, seqq.) Ep. 12. [al. 17.] ad Pleb. 


204.) Universi confessores Cypriano 
Papz salutem. Scias nos universis, 
de quibus apud te ratio constiterit, 
quid post commissum egerint, de- 
disse pacem: et hanc formam per te 
et aliis episcopis innotescere volui- 
mus, Optamus te cum sanctis mar- 
tyribus pacem habere.—Vid. Lucian. 
Ep. 20. [al.22.] ad Celerin. (pp. 202, 


8664.) 


131 


death, saying, he had his command so to do. All which Cy- 
prian complains of, in a Letter to the Clergy of Rome!’, as a 
thing dissolving all the bands of faith, and the fear of God, 
and the commandments of the Lord, and the holiness and 
vigour of the Gospel; and as creating great envy to the 
bishops, whilst they were forced to deny to lapsers what they 
boasted to have obtained of the martyrs and confessors. This 
occasioned, he says, great seditions and tumults: for in many 
cities throughout the province of Carthage the people rose up 
in multitudes against their bishops, and by their clamours 
compelled them to grant them instantly that peace which, 
they all said, the martyrs and confessors had given them. 
They, who had not courage enough and strength of faith to 
resist them. were by this means terrified and subdued into a 
~ compliance with them. And he had much ado himself to with- 
stand them at Carthage: for some turbulent men, who were 
hardly governable before, and thought it much to be kept 
back from communion till he returned out of exile, when they 
had gotten these letters of the martyrs, were all in a flame 
upon the strength of them, and began to rage immoderately, 
and in an extorting manner demand the peace, which, they 
said, the martyrs had granted them. 

By this representation of Cyprian, and his remonstrance 
upon it, it is easy to discern what mischief the abusing this 
privilege of the martyrs did to the true exercise of discipline ; 


ecclesiastical censures. 


17 Ep. 23. [al. 27.] ad Cler. Rom. 
Ρ. 52. (p. 206.) Postquam vero ad 
eos literas misi, ut, quasi moderatius 
aliquid et temperantius fieret, uni- 
versorum confessorum nomine idem 
Lucianus epistolam scripsit, qua pe- 
ne omne vinculum fidei, et timor 
Dei, et mandatum Domini, et Evan- 

elii sanctitas et firmitas solveretur. 
ipsit enim, omnium nomine, uni- 
versis eos pacem dedisse; et hanc 
formam per me aliis episcopis inno- 
tescere velle, cujus epistole exem- 
plum ad vos transmisi. Additum 
est plane, De quibus ratio consti- 
terit, quid post commissum egerint 
Quz res majorem nobis conflat in- 
vidiam, ut nos cum singulorum cau- 
sas audire et excutere cceperimus, 


videamur multis negare, quod se 
nunc omnes jactant a martyribus et 
confessoribus accepisse. ...In pro- 
vincia nostra per aliquot civitates in 
prepositos impetus per multitudi- 
nem factus est, et pacem, quam se- 
mel cuncti a martyribus et confes- 
soribus datam clamitabant, confes- 
tim sibi representari coégerunt ; 
territis et subactis preepositis suis, 
qui ad resistendum minus virtute 
animi et robore fidei prevalebant. 
Apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, 
qui vix a nobis in preteritum rege- 
bantur, et in nostram presentiam 
differebantur, per hanc epistolam, 
velut quibusdam facibus accensi, 
plus exardescere et pacem sibi da- 
tam extorquere cceperunt. 


K 2 


132 The objects of XVL 


whilst some out of lucre, others out of terror, complied with 
the lapsers’ unreasonable demands, and let the rich and the 
great escape punishment, and intrude themselves into the com- 
munion of the Church again without any sufficient evidences of 
repentance: but they, who, like Cyprian, had integrity and 
firmness enough to oppose these impious practices, kept up the 
discipline of the Church in its true vigour, and would hearken 
to no pretences or conditions of this kind, which only tended 
to impose upon them with false shows of a deceitful peace, and 
profane the mystery of the holy sacrament by giving it to the 
impenitent and the ungodly. 

Magistrates 5. Neither was it only men in a private condition they thus 

and princes treated, but also those of the highest rank and dignity. For 


subject to aa Σ ὶ ‘ ᾿ : 
ecclesiasti- the civil magistrates and princes were subject to ecclesiastical 


ie censures as well as any others. In the times of persecution 
well as any the very taking of some civil offices made Christians liable to 
others: excommunication. Particularly if they took upon them the 
office of the duwmviri, or the provincial office of the famines 
or sacerdotes provinciarum: because, as Gothofred 15. shows 
out of many laws of the Theodosian Code, these offices obliged 
them to exhibit the usual games or shows to the people: which 
in time of Heathenism could not be done without involving 
them in some measure in the guilt of idolatry, to which those 
games were consecrated. For which reason any Christian 
undertaking such an office was reputed an encourager and par- 
taker of idolatry, though he did not actually sacrifice to idols 
in his office. Upon which account the Council of Eliberis, 
which was held in time of persecution, anno 305, or there- 
abouts, orders !9, ‘that if any Christian took upon him the 
office of a flamen, though he did not sacrifice, but only exhibit 
the idolatrous shows to the people, he should be kept under 
strict penance all his life, and only be admitted to communion 
at his death; and that in consideration that he had abstained 


18 Paratitlon ad Cod. Theod. 1. 15. 19 Ὁ, 3. (t.1. p.971 a.) Flamines, 
tit. 5. de Spectaculis. (t. 5. p. 348.) qui non immolaverint, sed munus 
Edebantur autem spectacula vel a tantum dederint, eo quod se a fu- 
magistratibus. 1. Duumviris..... nestis abstinuerunt sacrificiis, pla- 
seu a curiarum primatibus viris cuit in fine eis prestari communio- 
.... 2. Vela sacerdotibus provinci- nem, acta tamen legitima pceni- 
arum, &c. tentia. 


133 


ecclesiastical censures. 


from offering the abominable sacrifices :’ for if he had offered 
sacrifice, then by the preceding canon®° he was denied commu- 
nion to the very last. Nay, though they had neither sacrificed, 
nor exhibited the shows out of their expense to the people, but 
only worn the crown in their office, by two other canons of the 
same Council?! they were to be denied the communion for a 
year or two. So that the being in a public office was so far 
from exempting a magistrate from the censures of the Church, 
that in many cases it was the very reason why they were exe- 
cuted with greater severity upon him, whilst no man could go 
through such an office without the guilt and stain of idolatry 
in some measure sticking to him. And when these offices were 
freed from idolatry, yet if a magistrate still committed other 
crimes worthy of ecclesiastical punishment, the censures of the 
Church, notwithstanding his office, would lay hold of him, and 
the name or character of a magistrate would give him no pro- 
tection. This appears plainly from the proceedings of Syne- 
sius 2? against Andronicus, the governing magistrate of Ptole- 
mais, whom he formally excommunicated with all his accom- 
plices: and from what has been observed before?® of the judge 
that was censured in the time of Julian, mentioned by St. Am- 
brose 2+; and of Athanasius excommunicating the governor of 
Libya for his immoralities, mentioned by St. Basil 25, which 
need not here be repeated. To these I add that general rule of 
the first Council of Arles?®, made with relation to all governors 
of provinces, that when they went to the government of any 
proyince, ‘they should take communicatory letters from their 


See be- 


20 Ὁ. 2. (ibid. p. 969 e.) Flamines, 
qui post fidem lavacri sacrificave- 
runt, placuit nec in fine eos accipere 
communionem. 

21 Ὁ, 55. (ibid. p. 976 d.) Sacer- 
dotes, qui tantum coronam portant, 
nec sacrificant, nec de suis sumpti- 
bus aliquid ad idola prestant, pla- 
cuit post biennium accipere com- 
munionem.—Conf. c. 56. (ibid. d.) 
Magistratum vero, qui agit duum- 
viratum, uno anno prohibendum 
placuit, ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat. 

22 Ep. 58. (p. 203 a. 5.) See be- 
fore, ch. 2. 8. 8. p. 87. n. 72. 

29 See ch. 2. s. 11. p. 97. 


24 Ep. 29. ad Theodos. 
fore, ch. 2.8.11. p. IOI. n. 21. 

25 Ep. 47. [al. 61.] See before, 
ibid. n. 22. 

26 C. 7. (t. 1. p. 1427 6.) De pre- 
sidibus placuit, ut, cum promoti fu- 
erint, literas accipiant ecclesiasticas 
communicatorias: ita tamen ut, in 
RT Os locis gesserint, ab epi- 
scopo ejusdem loci cura de illis aga- 
tur; ut [al. et] cum ceeperint contra 
disciplinam [publicam] agere, tum 
demum a communione excludantur. 
Similiter et de his [fiat], qui rem- 
publicam agere volunt. 


134 The objects of 


own bishop along with them, and be subject to the care of the 
bishop of the places wherever they went; so as if they com- 
mitted any thing contrary to the public discipline, they were to 
be excluded from the communion of the Church.’ 

This was no rule to deprive magistrates of their office, 
though they were heretics or schismatics, as Baronius 27 would 
have it understood: for, as Albaspiny in his Notes upon the 
place 25 more truly observes against him, ‘there is not a word 
about this in the canon: neither is it likely that a provincial 
Council should make a decree about that which is no way in 
their power, but in the power of the prince only. They might 
order, and that with good reason,’ he says, ‘ that no heretic or 
schismatic, although he was the governor of a province, should 
be admitted to communicate with the Church: but that there- 
fore he should be removed from his government because he 
was an heretic, was at the will and discretion of the prince, 
and not of the Church: it belongs to the prince and not the 
Church to take away the power of subordinate magistrates 
from them.’ The plain drift therefore of this canon is not to 
deprive inferior magistrates of any civil power or jurisdiction 
which the supreme magistrate committed to them, which the 
Church had no authority to do, but only to deny them her 
own communion, if unworthy of it; which was a thing then 
uncontested, and indisputably within the limits of her power. 
Neither need we wonder at this, since the Church laid claim 
to an higher power, even of excluding princes or the supreme 
magistrates from her communion, when guilty of notorious yio- 
lations of the laws of Christian society ; of which there are 


AVE ΗΝ. 


27 An. 314. 0.87. (t. 3. p. 137 d.) 
De presidibus, &c. .... Hactenus 
divina illa plane lex ecclesiastica in 
tam celebri episcoporum conventu, 
presente, rogante, ut par est cre- 
dere, atque annuente imperatore san- 
cita, qua schismatici atque heeretici 
a prefecturis ceterisque magistrati- 
bus excludendi penitus forent. 

28 Inc. 7. C. Arelatens. (t. I. p. 
1436 ἃ.) Ne verbo quidem de schis- 
maticis et hzereticis illo in canone 
agitur, aut quidquam aliud, quod 
probabilem hujusce sensus inducat 
suspicionem, reperiatur, Neque vero 


simile est, patres, qui in illa aderant 
provinciali synodo, suffragiis suis 
aliquid sanxisse, cujus observatio in 
eorum non esset, sed in principis 
potestate. Ne quis schismaticus aut 
hereticus, quamvis esset provincize 
preses, ceeterorum communioni so- 
ciaretur, decernere quidem et merito 
poterant: sed eo quod quispiam es- 
set hereticus, ut a reipublicee admi- 
nistratione removeretur, principis, 
non ecclesiz, erat judicium: illius 
profecto erat imperium presidibus 
abrogare, non ecclesie. 


= 


ecclesiastical censures. 135 


certain evidences both in the doctrine and practice of the ancient 
bishops of the Church. 

The story which is related by Eusebius concerning the Em- 
peror Philip, though disputed by many as to the truth of the 
fact, yet is a sufficient evidence of the opinion of Eusebius 39, 
who relates it. Now he tells us, ‘ There was a tradition that 
he was a Christian, and that on the vigil of the Passover he 
desired to communicate in prayers with the rest of the people: 
but that the bishop, who then presided, would not suffer him 
to enter, before he had confessed his crimes, and joined himself 
to those, who had sinned and stood in the place or order of the 
penitents. For otherwise he could not be received by hin, for 
the many crimes which he had committed. Upon which the 
emperor willingly obeyed, demonstrating his sincere and reli- 
gious disposition towards the fear of God by the tenour of his 
actions. Some 80 question the truth of the story, and think 
that it is a mistake of Philip the Emperor for one Philip, the 
Prefectus Augustalis of Egypt, who was a Christian. Others®? 
defend it as a true relation, only they think it was a transac- 
tion in private, which is the reason we have no account of it in 
Heathen story. But whether the fact was true or false, the 
reflection made upon it by Eusebius is of great moment in the 
present question. For he, supposing’ him to have been a 


29 L. 6. c. 34. (v. 1. p. 298. 8.) (ὦ. I. p. 226.) Quam opinionem de 


Τοῦτον κατέχει. λόγος Χριστιανὸν ὄν- 
τα, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ὑστάτης τοῦ Πάσχα 
παννυχίδος, τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
εὐχῶν τῷ πλήθει μετασχεῖν ἐθελῆσαι" 
οὐ πρότερον δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ τηνικάδε προ- 
εστῶτος ἐπιτραπῆναι εἰσβαλεῖν, ἢ ἐξΞ 
ομολογήσασθαι, καὶ τοῖς ἐν παραπτώ- 
μασιν ἐξεταζομένοις, μετανοίας τε χώ- 
pay ἴσχουσιν, ἑαυτὸν ᾿καταλέξαι" ἄλλως 
γὰρ μὴ ἄν ποτε πρὸς αὐτοῦ, μὴ οὐχὶ 
τοῦτο ποιήσαντα, διὰ πολλὰς τῶν κατ᾽ 
αὐτὸν αἰτίας παραδεχθῆναι. Καὶ πει- 
θαρχῆσαί γε προθύμως λέγεται, τὸ 
γνήσιον καὶ εὐλαβὲς τῆς περὶ τὸν θεῖον 
φόβον διαθέσεως ἔργοις ἐπιδεδειγ- 
μένον. 

80 Cave, Prim. Christ. part. 1. ch. 
3. p- 48. (p. 22.) But notwithstand- 
ing the smoothness of the story, &c. 

81 Pagi, Crit. in Baron. an. 247. 
n. 6. [corrige, an. 244. n. 4.] ex 
Huet. Origenian. 1. 1. c. 3. n. 12. 


conversione Philippi ad fidem nos- 
tram ab Eusebio hauserunt Paulus 
Orosius et Vincentius Lirinensis, a 
Baronio n. 8. citati, et ante illos 
divus Hieronymus, Libr. de Script. 
Eccles., cum de Origene loquitur. 
Mitto alios, qui serius floruere, qui 
alter alterum pug Doctissi- 
mus Huetius, Libr. 1. Origenian. 
c. 3.0. 12., autumat Fhilippam sub 
ipsa imperii sui initia Christi doc- 
trinam secutum esse, quod in ce- 
tum Christianorum jam creatus im- 
perator recipi postulaverit Antio- 
chiz, quo non nisi post arreptum 
recens imperium sese usquam con- 
tulit. Denique Baronius, cui in 
prima hujus voluminis editione ad- 
hesi, arbitratur eum, non nisi post- 
quam Judos szculares_ exhibuit, 
Shristo nomen dedisse. 


136 The objects of XVI. in. 


Christian, says, ‘ without such a compliance the bishop would 
never have admitted him.’ Which remark is sufficient to show 
the nature of the Church’s discipline in general, whatever be- 
comes of the truth of this particular story. 

Filesacus®2 and Valesius3? confound this story with the rela- 
tion, which St. Chrysostom gives of Babylas denying entrance 
into the church to one of the Roman emperors, upon the 
account of a barbarous murder committed by him upon a son 
of some confederate prince, who was entrusted as an hostage 
with him. Chrysostom names neither the emperor nor con- 
federate prince, and the stories differ in the whole relation, but 
especially in this material circumstance, that Philip is said to 
comply with the bishop’s admonition and stand in the order of 
penitents; but he, whom Chrysostom speaks of, was so far from 
submitting to the admonition of Babylas, that he remained 
incorrigible, and grew enraged, and cast him into prison, and 
loaded him with chains, which the martyr ordered to be buried 
with him, when the tyrant put him to death. So that this could 
not be Philip, but Decius, the persecuting Heathen, under whom 
Babylas suffered. 

However Chrysostom makes some curious remarks upon the 
behaviour of Babylas, both in reference to his courage and 
prudence, which abundantly show the spirit of discipline then 
prevailing in the Church. 

1. For, first, he remarks 34, that Babylas acted with the 


32 In Vincent. Lirinens. c. 23. n. 
125. (p. 196.) Is est Philippus im- 
perator, qui B. Babylam, episcopum 
Antiochenum et postea martyrem, 
interfici mandavit, ut habet S. Chry- 
sostomus adversus Gentiles, seu de 
S. Babyla, &c. 

33 In Euseb. 1. 6. c. 34. (v. 1. p. 
298. τι. 3.) Historiam hance de Phi- 
lippo imperatore, quem Babylas epi- 
scopus ab ecclesiz aditu repulit, re- 
fert auctor Chronici Alexandrini ex 
narratione Leontii episcopi Antio- 
cheni, qui sub Constantio imp. vixit. 
Eadem fere narrat Chrysostomus in 
Oratione de Sancto Babyla contra 
Gentiles, nisi quod imperatorem ip- 
sum non nominat. 

34 De Babyla, cont. Gentil. t. 1. 
Ρ. 740. (t. 2. p.544 4.) Οὗτος τοίνυν 


τότε τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν 
ἐνθάδε, ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος χάρι- 
τος ἐγχειρισθεὶς, τὸν ᾿Ηλίαν, καὶ τὸν 
τούτου ζηλωτὴν τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην.. . ἔφθα- 
σε... οὕτως, ὡς μηδὲ τὸ τυχὸν ἀπο- 
λειφθῆναι τῆς ἐλευθερίας τῶν γενναίων 
ἐκείνων ἀνδρῶν" οὐ γὰρ τετράρχην πό- 
λεων ὀλίγων, οὐδὲ ἑνὸς ἔθνους, βασιλέα, 
ἀλλὰ τὸν τοῦ πλείστου “μέρους (al. τὸ 
πλεῖστον μέρος] τῆς οἰκουμένης ἅπά- 
ons κατέχοντα, αὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτον τὸν 
ἀνδροφόνον, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν ἔθνη, ποὰλ- 
λάς τε πόλεις καὶ στρατιὰν ἄπειρον 
κεκτημένον, καὶ πάντοθεν ὄντα φοβε- 
ρὸν, ἀπό τε τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς ἀρχῆς, 
ἀπό τε τῆς τῶν τρόπων θρασύτητος, 
ὡς ἀνδράποδον εὐτελὲς καὶ οὐδενὸς 
ἄξιον [λόγου], οὕτω τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
ἐξέβαλε μετὰ τοσαύτης ἀταραξίας καὶ 
ἀφοβίας, μεθ᾽ ὅσης ἂν ποιμὴν πρόβα- 


§ 5. 


ecclesiastical censures. 137 
freedom and boldness of Elias and St. John Baptist, driving 
out of the Church, not a tetrarch of a few cities, nor a king of 
one nation, but him, who governed the greatest part of the 
world; a murderer, who had many nations, many cities, and a 
prodigious army at his command; one that was in all respects 
terrible, as well upon the account of his immense dominions, as 
the fierceness and cruelty of his temper: him he expelled as a 
vile and worthless slave, with as much intrepidity, constancy, 
and bravery of mind, as a shepherd would drive away from his 
flock a scabbed and infected sheep, to prevent the contagion of 
the distemper from spreading among the rest of the flock. Here 
he breaks out into a rapture 35, admiring his undaunted mind, 
his lofty soul, his heavenly terror of spirit and angelical con- 
stancy, superior to all this visible world, and only fixed upon 
God the Supreme King; acting as if he stood before the great 
judge, and heard him say, Cast out the wicked and infected 
sheep from the holy flock. 

2. Hence he observes, secondly 26, how fearless and un- 
daunted Babylas must be with respect to other men, who gave 
such a specimen of his power over the emperor. He could 
never act or speak out of favour or hatred; but with a mind 
equally fortified against fear and flattery, and all other things 
of the like nature, which are apt to beset men, he stood firm, 
and did not in the least corrupt right judgment. 

3. He remarks further 57, how he tempered his courage 


τον, “Ψώρας ἐμπεπλησμένον καὶ νενο- 
σηκὸς, τῆς ποίμνης ἀπείρξειε, κωλύων 
εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ διαβῆναι τὴν νόσον τοῦ 
κάμνοντος. 
ὅ5 Ibid. (p. 545 6. et p. 546 b.) 
*Q ψυχῆς ἀκαταπλήκτου, καὶ διανοίας 
ὑψηλῆς" ὦ φρενῶν εἰ sagas καὶ 
παραστήματος ἀγγελικοῦ" .. .. ὡς ἐ- 
κείνῳ τῷ δικαστῇ παρεστὼς, καὶ αὐτοῦ 
κελεύοντος ἀκούων, τὸν ἐναγῆ καὶ 
μιαρὸν τῆς ἱερᾶς ἀγέλης ἐξωθεῖν, ov- 
τως ἐξέβαλε, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προ- 
βάτων ἀφώρισε' καὶ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἐπε- 
στρέφετο τῶν ὁρωμένων καὶ δοκούντων 
εἶναι φοβερῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρείως αὐτὸν 
μάλα καὶ γενναίως ἀπωσάμενος, πα- 
ρέστη τυραννουμένοις τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
se. 
46 Ibid. (p. 546 b.) Kai τοι πόσῃ 


περὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς αὐτὸν παρρησίᾳ 


κεχρῆσθαι εἰκός: Ὃ γὰρ τῷ κρατοῦντι 
μετὰ τοσαύτης ἐξουσίας προσενεχθεὶς, 
τίνα τῶν λοιπῶν ἔδεισεν ἄν ; ᾿Εγὼ τὸν 
ἄνδρα ἐκεῖνον στοχάζομαι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλ- 
λον δὲ οὐ στοχάζομαι πιστεύω, μὴ 
πρὸς χάριν, μὴ πρὸς ἀπέχθειαν, μήτε 
πρᾶξαι, μ μητὲ εἰπεῖν τί more’ ἀλλὰ καὶ 
πρὸς φόβον, καὶ πρὸς τὴν τούτου δυνα- 
τωτέραν κολακείαν, καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα 
τὰ τοιαῦτα, πολλὰ δὲ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, 
γενναίως στῆναι καὶ ἀνδρείως, καὶ 
μηδὲ μικρόν τι τῆς ὀρθῆς διαφθεῖραι 
κρίσεως. 

37 Jhid. (c. ) Οὐδὲ yap ἐπὶ τῇ παρρη- 
σίᾳ μόνον. αὐτὸν θαυμάζειν χρὴ, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ μέχρι: τοσούτου τὴν παρρη- 
σίαν ἐκτεῖναι, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ πάλιν μηδὲν 
προσθεῖναι πλέον αὐτῇ" τοιαύτη γὰρ 
ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοφία, μήτε ἐλλειπῶς 
μήτε περιττῶς ἀγωνίζεσθαι συγχω- 


138 The objects of XVI. i. 


with Christian prudence, observing a decent mean in his 
behaviour. A man of his undaunted spirit might have gone 
much further. He might have railed at the emperor, and 
reviled him; he might have pulled the crown from his head, 
and have beaten him on the face: but his soul was seasoned 
with spiritual salt, which taught him to observe a decorum in 
all his management, and do nothing rashly or foolishly, but 
by the rules of right reason, which was a thing the philosophers 
in their reproofs of kings seldom observed. 

4. Hence he remarks once more 88, of how great advantage 
this example was to all men, both believers and unbelievers. 
The unbelievers were astonished at the action, and admired it: 
for they seeing the intrepidity of the servants of Christ, could 
not but deride the abject servility of those who ruled in the 
Heathen temples, when they observed them always more dis- 
posed to worship their kings, than their gods or idols. Whereas 
Babylas punished the injurious king, as far as it was lawful for 
a priest to do#9; he pulled down re high spirit of the prince ; 


he vindicated the divine laws when they were violated; he 


povaa, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ τὴν συμμετρίαν 
φυλάττουσα. Καί τοί γε ἐνῆν, εἴπερ 
ἐβούλετο, καὶ περαιτέρω προελθεῖν" τῷ 
γὰρ ᾿ἀπαγορεύσαντι τὸ ζῆν οὐδ᾽ ἂν 
τὴν ἀρχὴν προσῆλθεν, εἰ μὴ τοιούτοις 
αὐτὸν ὥπλισε λογισμοῖς" per’ ἐξου- 
σίας ἅπαντα πράττειν ἐξῆν, καὶ ὕβρεσι 
πλῦναι τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ τὸ διάδημα 
καθελεῖν τῆς κεφαλῆς, καὶ πληγὰς εἰς 
τὸ πρόσωπον ἐντεῖναι... . AA οὐδὲν 
τούτων ἐποίησε" τῷ γὰρ ἅλατι τῷ 
πνευματικῷ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ npTupevos ἦν' 
δι ὅπερ οὐδὲν ἔ ,ἔπραττεν εἰκῆ καὶ μά- 
την, ἀλλὰ πάντα κρίσει λογισμῶν 
ὀρθῇ, καὶ μετὰ καταστάσεως ὑγιοῦς" 
οὐ καθάπερ οἱ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφοὶ, οἱ 
συμμέτρως. μὲν οὐδέποτε. πανταχοῦ 
δὲ, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἢ πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον τοῦ 
δέοντος παρρησιάζονται. 

38 Ibid. (p. 547 6.) Οἱ δὲ δ αὐτοῦ 
al. ἐκείνου κερδαίνοντες πολλοί... 
Οσοι περ ἂν ἦσαν ἄπιστοι xaremhd- 

γησαν, καὶ ἐθαύμασαν, μαθόντες ὅσης 
τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δούλοις 6 Χριστὸς τῆς 
παρρησίας μετέδωκε" κατεγέλασαν τῆς 
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς δουλοπρεπείας, καὶ ave- 
λευθερίας. καὶ ταπεινότητος" εἶδον 
ὅσον τῆς Χριστιανῶν εὐγενείας πρὸς 


τὴν Ἑλλήνων αἰσχύνην τὸ μέσον" οἵ 
μὲν γὰρ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν 
ἐπιμέλειαν ἐγκεχειρισμένοι, μᾶλλον 
δεσποτῶν καὶ τῶν εἰδώλων δὲ αὐτῶν 
τοὺς βασιλεῖς θεραπεύουσι, καὶ διὰ 
τὸν ἐκείνων φόβον καὶ τοῖς ξοάνοις 
αὐτοῖς παρεδρεύουσιν, ὡς τοὺς πονη- 
ροὺς δαίμονας τοῖς βασιλεῦσι χάριν 
ἔχειν τῆς εἰς αὐτοὺς τιμῆς. 

%9 (Ibid. (p. 550 a.) Τέως be Tov 
ὑβριστὴν ἐκόλασε, καὶ “ταύτῃ a τὸν 
ἱερέα κολάζειν θέμις ἐστὶ, τὰ τῶν 
ἀρχόντων κατέστειλε φρονήματα, τοῖς 
τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμοις κινουμένοις ἐπήμυνε, 
τιμωρίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κακῶς σφαγέντος 
ἀπήτησε, τὴν πασῶν τιμωριῶν x 
πωτέραν τοῖς γε νοῦν Exovat. . . Ai- 
κην ἐπέθηκεν αὐτῷ τε πρέπουσαν, 
κἀκεῖνον ἐπιστρέψαι i ἱκανὴν. εἰ μὴ λίαν 
ἀναίσθητος ἔ ἔτυχεν ὧν, οὐχ ἡλίῳ θε- 
ρομένῳ αὐτῷ τὸν βασιλέα ἐπισκο- 
τοῦντα ἀποστῆσαι ἀξιῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναι- 
δῶς τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιπηδῶντα περιβό- 
λοις, καὶ πάντα “συγχέοντα, καθάπερ 
τινὰ κύνα καὶ οἰκέτην ἀγνώμονα τῶν 
δεσποτικῶν ἀπείργων αὐλῶν. Gri- 
schov. | 


ecclesiastical censures. 139 


punished the king for his murder with a punishment, that to all 
men of a sound mind is the most terrible of any other. He 
did not, like Diogenes, bid him stand out of his sunshine ; but 
when he thrust himself impudently within the sacred bound- 
aries of the church, and confounded all good order, he drove 
him from his Master’s house, as he would have done a dog, or 
an offending slave. And so the holy man took down the con- 
fidence of unbelievers, who were then the greatest part of the 
Roman empire. And for those who had already embraced 
the faith of Christ 4°, he by this act made them more circum- 
spect and religious; not only private men, but soldiers, cap- 
tains, and generals ; showing them that among Christians the 
prince and chief of all are but names, and that he that wears 
the crown, when he is to be punished and rebuked, is no more 
considered than one of the lowest order. 

5. Hence he concludes“, lastly, that this rare example of 
virtue was matter of instruction both to priests and princes, to 
teach princes to submit to the rules of discipline, and priests to 
take courage in the exercise of it: forasmuch as that the care 
of the world, and what is done in it, is as properly committed 
to them, as to him that wears the purple: and that they ought 
rather to part with their lives, than part with or diminish that 
power and authority which God from above has committed to 
them. 

Any one may perceive by this discourse of St. Chrysostom, 
what opinion he had of the power and extent of ecclesiastical 
discipline, even over sovereign princes: not to pull off their 
crowns, and dethrone them; not to rayish away their temporal 
power, under the pretence of the spiritual power being superior ; 
nor yet to speak evil of dignities, or treat them unmannerly, 


4 Thid. t. 1. p. 747. (p. 550 ἃ.) 


Tovs μὲν οὖν ἀπίστους οὕτω συν- 
ἔστειλεν ὁ μακάριος, τοὺς δὲ πιστοὺς 
εὐλαβεστέρους κατέστησεν, οὐκ ἰδιώ- 
τας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ στρατιώτας καὶ 
στρατηγοὺς, καὶ ὑπάρχους, δείξας ὅτι 
ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ ὁ πάντων ἔσχατος 
παρὰ Χριστιανοῖς, ὀνόματα μόνον ἐστὶ, 
καὶ τῶν ἐλαχίστων ὁ τὸ διάδημα ἔχων 
οὐκ ἔσται σεμνότερος, ὅτ᾽ ἂν κολάζεσ- 
θαι καὶ ἐπιτιμᾶσθαι δέῃ. 


δ Tbid. t. 1. p. 749. (p. 551 a.) 


Ἔστι τι καὶ τρίτον κατόρθωμα οὐ τὸ 
τυχόν" τῶν γὰρ μετὰ ταῦτα ἱερᾶσθαι 
καὶ βασιλεύειν μελλόντων τὰ φρονή- 
ματα, τῶν μὲν κατέστειλε, τῶν δὲ 
ἐπῇρεν ἀποφήνας, ὅτι τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν 
ἐν τῇ γῇ πραττομένων κυριώτερος 
ἐπίτροπος ὁ τὴν. ἱερωσύνην λαχὼν τοῦ 
τὴν ἁλουργίδα ἔχοντός ἐστι᾿ καὶ χρὴ 
τῆς ἐξουσίας ταύτης τὸ μέγεθος μὴ 
ἐλαττοῦν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξίστασθαι 
πρότερον, ἢ τῆς αὐθεντίας, ἣν ὁ Θεὸς 
ἄνωθεν ταύτῃ συνεκλήρωσε τῃ ἀρχῇ. 


140 The objects of XVI. i. 


and revile them; but only to debar them from the communion of 
the Church, when by notorious wickedness they rendered them- 
selves altogether unworthy, and really incapable of it. Which 
is agreeable to that general direction he gives in another place to 
the clergy, not to admit any one of notorious improbity, cruelty, 
or impurity to the Lord’s table: ‘ Although it be a commander,’ 
says he 42, ‘or a governor, or even he that wears the diadem, 
that comes unworthily, prohibit him: thou hast greater power 
than he.’ He adds a little after 19, ‘if thou art afraid to do this, 
bring him unto me. I will not suffer any such thing to be 
done: I will sooner give my own life, than the body of the 
Lord unworthily : I will shed my own blood, before I will give 
that most holy blood to an unworthy man.’ 

But there is none more famous than St. Ambrose for his 
remarkable freedom in this matter with the greatest of princes, 
whether in admonishing them, or in denying them the com- 
munion upon the commission of some great offences. Paulinus‘, 
the writer of his Life says, he separated Maximus from the 
communion, admonishing him to repent for shedding the blood 
of Gratian his lord, if ever he hoped to find mercy at the hands 
of God. So, when Valentinian was solicited by Symmachus, 
the Heathen governor of Rome, to restore the Gentile rites, and 
suffer the altar of Victory to be repaired in the Capitol, St. 
Ambrose #5 wrote to him, and told him, among many other 
arguments, ‘ that, if he thus gratified the Heathen in restoring 
idolatry, the bishops could not bear or dissemble it with a 


42 Hom. 82. [al. 83-] in Matth. 
795: Lt. 7: Ps 789 σε: Kav στρατηγὸς 
Tis ἡ, κἂν ὕπαρχος, κἄν αὐτὸς ὁ τὸ 
διάδημα περικείμενος, ἀναξίως δὲ 
προσείῃ, κὠλυσον᾽" μείζονα ἐκείνου τὴν 
ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις. 

43 (Ibid. (Pp. 79° b.) Εἰ δὲ αὐτὸς 
οὐ τολμᾷς, ἐμοὶ πρόσαγε, οὐ συγχω- 
ρήσω ταῦτα τολμᾶσθαι" τῆς ψυχῆς 
ἀποστήσομαι πρότερον, ἢ τοῦ σώματος 
[Bened. αἵματος] μεταδώσω τοῦ Δεσ- 
ποτικοῦ παρ᾽ ἀξίαν" καὶ τὸ αἷμα τὸ 
ἐμαυτοῦ προήσομαι πρότερον, ἢ μετα- 
δώσω αἵματος οὕτω φρικώδους παρὰ 
τὸ προσῆκον. Grischov. | 

44 Vit. Ambros. (t. 2. preefix. ap- 
pend. p.6a.n. 19.)Ipsum vero Maxi- 
mum a communionis consortio se- 


gregavit, admonens ut effusi san- 
guinis domini sui....ageret poe- 
nitentiam, si sibi apud Deum velet 
esse consultum. 

45 Ep. 30. [al. 17.] ad Valentin. 
Jun. (t. 2. p. 827 a. nn. 13, 14.) 
Certe....episcopi hoc zquo animo 
pati et dissimulare non possunt 
[4]. possumus]. Licebit tibi ad ec- 
clesiam convenire: sed illic non 
invenies sacerdotem, aut invenies 
resistentem. Quid respondebis sa- 
cerdoti dicenti tibi, Munera tua 
non querit ecclesia, quia templa 
Gentilium muneribus adornasti? A- 
ra Christi dona tua respuit, quo- 
niam aram simulacris fecisti. 


ecclesiastical censures. 141 


patient mind. He might, if he pleased, come to church, but 
he would either find no priest there, or else only one to μον 
him, and deny him communion.’ ‘ And what will you answer,’ 
says he, ‘to the priest, when he tells you the Church desires 
not your oblations or gifts, because you have adorned the 
temples of the Gentiles with your gifts? The altar of Christ 
refuses your gifts, because you have erected an altar to the 
idol gods.’ 

But the most remarkable instance of his freedom was shown 
in his treatment of Theodosius the Great, after he had inhu- 
manly put to death seven thousand men at Thessalonica, without 
distinguishing the innocent from the guilty. When he had 
committed this fact, not being very sensible of his crime, he 
came to Milan, and according to custom was going to church ; 
but St. Ambrose met him at the gate, and accosted him in this 
manner, as Theodoret 16 relates the story: ‘ You seem not to 
understand, Sire, the greatness of the murder you have com- 
mitted. Your anger not being yet allayed, hinders your 
reason from considering what you have done; and perhaps the 
greatness of your empire will not suffer you to acknowledge 
your offence, and power opposes itself to reason. But you 
must know, that our nature is mortal and frail: our original 
is dust, whence we were taken, and into which we must return 
again. It is not fit you should deceive yourself with the 


ΑΘ ΤΟ, 5. c. 18. (v. 3. Ρ- 215. 31:) 


τοῦ ἀδίκου φόνου τὸ αἷμα; πῶς δὲ 


Οὐκ οἶσθα ὡς ἔοικεν, 3 ached, τῆς 
εἰργασμένης μιαιφονίας τὸ μέγεθος, 
οὐδὲ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ θυμοῦ παῦλαν ὁ 
λογισμὸς ἐ ἐπέγνω τὸ τολμηθέν. Οὐκ 
ἐᾷ γὰρ ἴσως τῆς βασιλείας ἡ ἡ δυναστεία 
ἐπιγνῶναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπι- 
προσθεῖ ἡ ἐξουσία τῷ λογισμῷ. Χρὴ 
μέν τοι εἰδέναι τὴν φύσιν, καὶ τὸ ταύ- 
της θνητόν τε καὶ διαρρέον, καὶ τὸν 
πρόγονον χοῦν, ἐξ οὗ γεγόναμεν, καὶ 
εἰς ὃ ὃν ἀπορρέομεν᾽ καὶ μὴ τῷ ἄνθει 
τῆς ἁλουργίδος ἀποβουκολούμενον ἀ ἀγ- 
νοεῖν τοῦ καλυπτομένου σώματος τὴν 
ἀσθένειαν. “ομοφυῶν ἄρχεις, ὦ βα- 
σιλεῦ, καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ ὁμοδούλων. Eis 
γὰρ, ἁπάντων Δεσπότης καὶ Βασιλεὺς, 
ὁ τῶν ὅλων Δημιουργός. Ποίοις τοίνυν 
ὀφθαλμοῖς ὄψει. τὸν τοῦ κοινοῦ Δεσ- 
πότου νέων ; ποίοις δὲ ποσὶ τὸ δάπε- 
Sov ἐκεῖνο πατήσεις τὸ ἅγιον ; πῶς δὲ 
τὰς χεῖρας ἐκτενεῖς, ἀποσταζούσας ἔτι 


τοιαύταις ὑποδέξῃ χερσὶ τοῦ Δεσπότου 
τὸ πανάγιον σῶμα; πῶς δὲ τῷ στό- 
ματι “προσοίσεις τὸ αἷμα τὸ τίμιον, 
τοσοῦτον διὰ τὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ λόγον 
ἐκχέας παρανόμως αἷμα : ἔΑπιθι τοί- 
νυν, καὶ μὴ πειρῶ τοῖς δευτέροις τὴν 
προτέραν αὔξειν “παρανομίαν, καὶ δέ- 
χου τὸν δεσμὸν, ᾧ ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ τῶν ὅλων 
Δεσπότης, ἄνωθεν γίνεται σύμψηφος" 
ἰατρικὸς δὲ οὗτος, καὶ πρόξενος ὑ ὑγιείας, 
x. τ᾿ A. [Conf. Augustin. Hom. 40. 
ex 50. t. 10. p. 202. [8]. Serm. 392. ] 
(t. 5. p. 1504 f, g.) Fortassis..... 
propterea Deus voluit ut Theodosius 
imperator ageret poenitentiam pub- 
licam in conspectu populi, maxime 
quia peccatum ejus celari non potuit; 

et erubescit senator, quod non eru- 
buit imperator? Erubescit, nec 
senator, sed tantum curialis, quod 
non erubuit imperator? &c. Ep.] 


142 The objects of XVI. im. 


splendour of your purple, and forget the weakness of the body 
that is covered with it. Your subjects, Sire, are of the same 
nature with yourself, and you are a servant as well as they: 
for we have one common Lord, and King, the Maker of this 
universe. Therefore with what eyes will you look upon the 
house of our common Lord ? with what feet will you tread his 
holy pavement? will you stretch forth those hands still drop- 
ping with the blood of that unjust murder, and therewith take 
the holy body of the Lord? and then put the cup of that 
precious blood to your mouth, who have shed so much blood 
by the hasty decree of an angry mind? Depart, I beseech 
you, and do not aggravate and augment your former iniquity 
by the addition of a new crime. Refuse not those bonds 
which the Lord of all confirms from heaven above. It is but 
a small thing that is laid upon you, but it will recover you to 
perfect health and salvation.” The emperor, who had been 
educated in the holy doctrine, and knew what were the different 
offices of priests and kings, was so moved with these words, 
that he returned to his palace with groans and tears. Eight 
months passed between this and the festival of our Saviour’s 
nativity, and all that time the emperor sat lamenting in his 
own palace, and shedding rivers of tears. Which Ruffin, the 
master of the palace, who for his familiarity with the emperor 
could take a great freedom with him, observing, came to him, 
and desired to know the reason of his tears. To whom the 
emperor replied, ‘ You make a jest of the thing, Ruffin: for 
you are not touched with the sense of my misfortunes; but 
I mourn and lament in consideration of my calamity, that 
whilst the temple of God is open to the very slaves and beggars, 
and they can go in freely, and supplicate their Lord, it is inac- 
cessible to me; and besides all this, heaven is shut against 
me: for I remember the words of our Lord, which plainly say, 
Whomsoever ye shall bind on earth, he shall be bound in 
heaven.’ Then Ruffin said, ‘I will go therefore to the bishop, if 
you please, and entreat him to loose your bonds.’ The emperor 
replied. ‘ He will not be persuaded. For I know the justice of 
the sentence which St. Ambrose has given, and he will not, out 
of any reverence to the imperial power, transgress the divine 
law.’ But, Ruffin insisting, and with many words promising to 
appease Ambrose towards him, he bid him go quickly, and he 


§ 5. 


ecclesiastical censures. 149 


himself followed a little after, relying upon the promises of 
Ruffin. But St. Ambrose no sooner saw Ruffin, but he said to 
him, ‘ Ruffin, thou art a very shameless man. For thou wast 
the evil counsellor of so great a slaughter, and now thou 
hardenest thy forehead, and hast cast away shame, neither 
blushing, nor trembling for so great a ravagement made of the 
image of God.’ Ruffin still went on with his supplication, and 
told him the emperor himself was coming. At which Am- 
brose kindled with a divine fervour and said, ‘ I tell thee before- 
hand, Ruffin, I will not admit him within the divine gates: but 
and if he will turn his empire into tyranny and slay me also, 
I shall with great pleasure take my death.” Ruffin hearing 
this sent one immediately to-the emperor, to certify him of 
the bishop’s resolution, and to desire him to stay in the palace: 


᾿ but the emperor being on his way in the middle of the forum, 


when he received the message, said, ‘I will go and bear his just 
reproofs.’ When he came to the holy boundaries he would not 
enter into the church, but going to the bishop, as he sat in the 
saluting house, he begged of him to absolve him from his bonds. 
But Ambrose told him, ‘this his coming was tyrannical; and 
that he now began to rage against God, and trample upon 
the divine laws.’ The emperor said, ‘ By no means: I do not 
offer myself against the prescript of the laws, I do not desire 
to enter the church in an unlawful manner; but I entreat you 
to absolve me from my bonds, and to remember the clemency 
of our common Lord, and not shut the gate against me, which 
the Lord hath opened to all those that turn to him with 
repentance,’ ‘What repentance then,’ said the bishop, ‘ have 
you shown since the commission of so great a wickedness? with 
what medicine have you cured your grievous wounds? The 
emperor replied, ‘It belongs to your office to prepare the 
medicine, and cure those wounds, and my part is to use what 
you prescribe.’ Then said Ambrose, ‘ Forasmuch as you have 
suffered anger and fury, and not reason, to sit in judgment and 
give sentence in matters before, now make a law, which may 
render all judgment given in anger null and yoid. When any 
sentence of death or confiscation is pronounced, let there be 
thirty days’ time between that and the execution, to wait for the 
judgment of reason. When this term is expired, let the scribes 
again present the sentence you haye given before you, and 


144 The objects of AVI. ii. 


then reason without anger will be able to examine the sentence 
by her own judgment, and discern whether it be just or unjust. 
If it be unjust, cancel and reverse it: if just, corroborate and 
confirm it; and this number of days will be no prejudice to 
any righteous sentence.’ The emperor approved of the pro- 
posal, and immediately ordered such a law to be written, and 
confirmed it with his own hand. Then St. Ambrose absolved 
him from his bonds, and the emperor took courage to enter 
into the church: but he would neither stand nor kneel, while 
he made supplication to the Lord, but fell upon his face to the 
earth, using those words of David, “ My soul cleaveth to the 
ground, quicken thou me according to thy word!” and tearing 
his hair, and beating his forehead, and watering the pavement 
with drops of tears, with these indications of sorrow he prayed 
for pardon. And so when the time of the oblation came, he 
was admitted again to make his offering at the holy table. 

I have related this matter at full length in Theodoret’s 
words, because, as he there observes, it is such an illustrious 
instance of the virtue both of the bishop and the emperor, showing 
the freedom and flaming fervour of the one, and a great con- 
descension, obedience, and purity of faith, in the other. Theo- 
doret adds, ‘that when the emperor was returned to Constan- 
tinople he was pleased to say he had now learned the difference 
between an emperor and a bishop; he had now at last found a 
guide to show him what was truth: for Ambrose alone was 
worthy the name of a bishop. So useful an impression,’ says 
our author, ‘does a reproof or admonition make when given by 
a man of shining virtue.’ 

After this it is needless to relate any later instances of this 
kind of discipline exercised upon princes: but it may be proper 
to remind the reader here again of that necessary distinction 
between the greater and lesser excommunication, the former of 
which separates a criminal from all manner of society with the 
faithful, the other only from communion and society in holy 
things in the church; and to observe with many learned men, 
that these excommunications of princes now mentioned never 
went further ‘than to a prudent admonition and suspension of 
them from the sacrament and the holy offices of the Church. 
St. Ambrose, says Bishop Buckeridge 17 in answer to Bellarmin, 


47 Johannes Roffensis, De Potestate Pape in Rebus Temporali- 


ecclesiastical censures. 145 


did plainly prohibit Theodosius from entering the church and 
partaking of the sacraments; but he neither delivered him to 
Satan, nor reduced him into the number of publicans or pagans, 
nor separated him from all society and communion with the 
faithful. If Bellarmin spake properly of the greater excom- 
munication, the proof of a doubtful matter lies upon him; if 
only of the lesser excommunication or suspension, which forbids 
men entrance into the church and communion in the sacra- 
ments, we do not deny but that Theodosius was so excommuni- 
eated by St. Ambrose. For St. Ambrose 15 told him ‘he durst not 
offer the sacrifice if he was present. He thought he saw him 
in a vision come to the church, and then he durst not celebrate 
because of his presence. He could not accept his oblation till 
he had power to offer, and till his offering would be acceptable 


to God.’ He suspended him therefore from the sacrament, but 


did not lay upon him the anathema or greater excommunica- 
tion. Bishop Taylor‘? takes excommunication in this sense 
when he says, ‘If we consult the doctrine and practices of the 


bus, l. 2. c. 39. n. 1. (p. 927.) Siergo 
de excommunicatione majore proprie 
loquatur Bellarminus, incumbit ei 
robatio ; sic enim excommunicatum 
uisse dubitari potest. Si de excom- 
municationeminori, sivesuspensione, 
que tantum limina ecclesiz et sacra- 
mentorum communionem negat, lo- 
quatur, non negamus sic ab Am- 
brosio excommunicatum Theodo- 
sium. Vincula vero hec, quibus 
ligatus est Theodosius, fuerunt vin- 
cula peccatorum, que ab Ambrosio 
retenta sunt. Quidquid ligaveris in 
terra, ligatum erit mm celis; que 
verba et ad peccatorum retentionem 
et ad anathematis sive excommuni- 
cationis sententiam pertingunt. Ex- 
communicatio ergo ista est minor, 
non major; id quod verba Ambrosii 
satis docent, lib. 5. epist. 28. ad 
Theodos., Causam contumacie in te 
nullam habeo, sed habeo timoris: of- 
Ferre non audeo sacrificia, si volueris 
assistere. An excommunicatio ulla 
sine contumacia? Immo et se pro- 
hibitum docet visione, ne offerret : 
Cum enim essem solicitus ipsa nocte, 
qua proficisci putabam, venisse qui- 
visus es ad ecclesiam, sed mihi 
sacrificium offerre non licuit. Et in- 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


fra: Tune offerres, cum sacrificandi 
acceperis facultatem, quando hostia 
tua accepta sit Deo. Non ergo se- 
paratus est a consortio fidelium, nec 
Satanz traditus, sed ligatus in pec- 
cato, donec condignam egerat peeni- 
tentiam, et exclusus a liminibus et 
sacramentis ecclesiz. In his aperte 
prohibet Ambrosius Theodosium ab 
ingressu ecclesiz et communione sa- 
cramentorum, sed nec Satan tradit, 
nec in numerum publicanorum et 
ethnicorum redigit, nec ccetu et com- 
munione fidelium separat.—See Dr. 
Barrow of the Pope’s Supremacy. 
(Works, at the end οἷν. 1. pp. 12, 
seqq.) I know Pope Gregory VII. to 
countenance him, &c. 

48 Ep. 28. [4]. 51.] ad Theodos. 
(t. 2. p. 1000 b,c, d. ἢ. 13-15.) OFf- 
ferre non audeo sacrificium, si volu- 
eris assistere..... Venisse quidem 
visus es ad ecclesiam, sed mihi sa- 
crificium offerre non licuit....Tunc 
offerres, cum sacrificandi acceperis 
facultatem, quando hostia tua ac- 
cepta sit Deo. 

49 Duct. Dubitant. b. 3. ch. 4. 
p- 604. (rule 7. 8. 7. Works, v. 13. 
p-595-) And if concerning this in- 
quiry, &c 


L 


146 The objects of XVI. 11, 


Fathers in the primitive and ancient Churches we shall find 
that they never durst think of excommunicating kings. The 
first supreme prince that ever was excommunicated by a bishop 
was Henry the Emperor by Pope Hildebrand.’ He adds ‘ that 
there is one portion of excommunication, which is denying to 
administer the holy communion to princes of a scandalous and 
evil life; and concerning this there is no question but the 
bishop not only may but in some cases must do it. Christ 
says, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, and cast not 
pearls before swine.” Whatsoever is in the ecclesiastical hand 
by divine right is as applicable to him that sits upon the throne 
as to him that sits upon the dunghill.’ But then he says one 
thing which, as I conceive, contradicts this: viz.5° ‘that this 
refusing must be only by admonition and caution, by fears and 
denunciations evangelical, by telling him his unfitness to com- 
municate, and his danger if he do: but if after this separation 
by way of sentence and proper ministry the prince will be 
communicated, the bishop has nothing else to do but to pray 
and weep and willingly to minister’ This not only contradicts 
what he just says before, ‘that a bishop is obliged in duty to 
deny to administer the communion to princes of a scandalous 
and evil life,’ but is directly contrary to the doctrine and prac- 
tice of St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose, who profess they 
would rather die than give the communion to a prince that 
was utterly incapable and unworthy of it. 
In what 6. Yet as to what concerns the greater excommunication, it 
coarhee cs is certain that in some cases it was forborne, not only with 
communi- relation to princes, but the people also. For prudence directed 
See them to do every thing for the good of the Church, and to 
the good of use this severe weapon only to edification, and not to destrue- 
the Church. .. : . 
tion. And therefore when it was apparent, or but highly 
probable, that the intemperate and indiscreet use of it might 
do more harm than good to the Church, there both reason and 
charity directed them to waive the use of it, for fear of rooting 
up the wheat with the tares before the proper time of judg- 


50 Ibid. p. 605. (ibid. 5. το. p. Church and curate of souls reject 
598.) But then, &c.—See also his impenitent persons or any criminals 
Worthy Communicant, ch. 5. s.6. from the holy sacrament, until them- 
p. 487. (Works, v.15. pp.639 seqq.) selves be satisfied of their repentance 
Whether may every minister of the and amends? 


ecclesiastical censures. 14:7 


ment. As to princes, Dr. Barrow 5! in a few words, which 
contain a great deal of ancient history, has further observed, 
‘that though there were many sovereign princes in the pri- 
mitive Church, who were heretics and enemies to true religion, 
yet no ancient pope seems to have been of opinion that they 
might excommunicate them. For if they might, why did not 
Pope Julius or Pope Liberius excommunicate Constantius, the 
great favourer of the Arians? How did Julian himself escape 
the censure of Liberius?’ Why did not Damasus thunder 
against Valens, that fierce persecutor of the Catholics? Why 
did not Damasus censure the Empress Justina, the patroness 
of Arianism? Why did not Siricius censure Theodosius for 
that bloody fact, for which St. Ambrose denied him the com- 
munion? How was it that Pope Leo, that stout and high 


pope, had not the heart to correct Theodosius Junior in his 


way, who was the supporter of his adversary Dioscorus, and the 
obstinate protector of the second Ephesine Council, which that 
pope so much detested? Why did not that pope rather compel 
that emperor by censures, than supplicate him by tears? How 
did so many popes connive at Theodoric and other princes 
professing Arianism at their door? Why did not Simplicius or 
Felix thus punish the Emperor Zeno, the supplanter of the 
Council of Chalcedon, for which they had so much zeal? Why 
did neither Felix, nor Gelasius, nor Symmachus, nor Hormis- 
das excommunicate the Emperor Anastasius, yea ‘did not so 
much,’ Pope Gelasius says, ‘as touch his name,’ for countenanc- 
ing the Oriental bishops in their schism and refractory non- 
compliance with the papal authority? Those popes did indeed 
clash with their emperor, but they expressly deny, that they 
did condemn him with others whom he did favour.’ ‘ We,’ 
says Pope Symmachus ὅ2, ‘ did not excommunicate you, O Em- 
peror, but Acacius. If you mingle yourself, you are not ex- 
communicated by us, but by yourself.’ ‘And,’ says Gela- 
sius *8, ‘if the emperor is pleased to join himself with those 


51 Of the Pope’s Supremacy. vimus imperator, sed Acacium. ... 
(Works, at the end of v.1. p.12.) Si te misces, non a nobis, sed a 
Indeed ... it doth not seem,to have teipso excommunicatus es. 
been the opinion, &c. 53 Ep. 4. (ibid. p. 1168 b.) Si 

ὅ2 Ep. 7. [4]. 6.] (CC. t. 4. p. isti placet se miscere damnatis, no- 
1298 6.) Nos te non excommunica- bis non potest imputari. 


+ ee 


148 The objects of 


that are condemned, that cannot be imputed to us.’ Where- 
fore Baronius 54 doth ill in affirming Pope Symmachus to have 
anathematized Anastasius; whereas that pope plainly denied 
it even in those words, which are cited to prove it, being 
rightly read: for they are corruptly written, in Baronius 55 
and Binius 56, ego, which hath no sense, or one contradictory 
to his former assertion, being put for nego, which is good 
sense, and agreeable to what he and the other popes do affirm 
in relation to that matter ;—that they did not pretend to ana- 
thematize the emperor with other heretics whom they so con- 
demned. See Barrow. 

Indeed there were three reasons why the Ancients forbore 
to anathematize sovereign princes. One was that, which has 
just now been mentioned, because they thought they had no 
power to excommunicate them in such manner, but only to 
deny them the participation of the eucharist. Another reason 
was, that heretical princes did in effect excommunicate them- 
selves by deserting the Church, and joining with heretics, and 
therefore the Church had no reason to pronounce anathema 
against them. A third reason was, that the doing so might 
have done more harm than good to the Church, by irritating 
and exasperating the minds of heretical princes to persecute 
the Church with greater malice, and thereby many weak 
members of the Church might have been scandalized and 
offended. Therefore Bishop Buckeridge 57 says, ‘In such 


54 An. 503. n. 17. (t.6. p.568a.) p.1298., where the Epistle itself is 
Qui....ab ipso Symmacho ana- entitled Apologetica adversus Ana- 
themate idem damnatus est Anasta- stasii Imperatoris Libellum famo- 


XVI. iii. 


sius imperator, &c. 

55 Ubi supr. See also the fol- 
lowing note. 

56 [Ap. Concil. General. cum No- 
tis, &c. Colon. 1618, sive Lutet. 
Paris. 1636.] Symmachi Ep.7. Dicis 
quod, mecum conspirante senatu, 
excommunicaverim te. Ista quidem 
ego, sed rationabiliter factum a deces- 
soribus meis sine dubio subsequor.— 
So Baronius and Binius read it, Ista 
quidem ego ; but the true reading is, 
Ista quidem nego, I deny that I ex- 
communicated you. And yet Labbe 
retains that corrupt reading without 
any remark upon it. [See CC. t.4. 


sum, quo Pontificem ob latam in se 
excommunicationis sententiam pro- 
scindebat. ‘The document is not 
exstant in Crabbe and older edi- 
tions which I have been able to 
examine; consequently after some 
pains I have failed in finding autho- 
rity for nego as the true reading 
instead of ego, which Barrow and 
the Author after him condemn. Ep. ] 

57 Johannes Roffensis, De Potes- 
tate Papz in Rebus Temporalibus, 
1, 2. c. 39. ἢ. 3. (p. 931.) Quod si 
hee ausus fuisset [Ambrosius] in 
Imperatorem aliquem, parum pium, 
crudelem, omnis apprehensionis et 


ot be 


§ 6. 


ecclesiastical censures. 149 


cases where princes are fierce and cruel, and impatient of 
reproof and indignity, it were perhaps better to abstain from 
the severity of the lesser excommunication as well as the 
greater, rather than for a bishop to provoke an armed fury 
to turn itself both upon him and the Church: it were better 
to keep the sword in the sheath, than to unsheath it to the 
detriment and destruction of the Church and religion. There- 
fore admitting that of right kings and emperors might be 
excommunicated, yet the expediency of the thing is a very 
different question, and remains yet not perfectly resolved, 
whether it be for the advantage of the Church to use such’ 
severity against her patrons, her defenders, and her advocates, 
that is, emperors and kings.’ 

And this consideration of expediency made St. Austin and 


_ others determine, not only in the case of kings, but the people 


also, that when the whole multitude were involved in the same 
erime, either by actual commission, or abetting, or applauding 
the practice of it, that then the severity of excommunication, 
especially in the highest degree, could not be used toward 
them with any sort of prudence, for fear it should have either 
no effect or a very bad one. When a single criminal is 
separated by discipline from the society of the Church, the 
being ayoided by the rest is a proper way to bring him to 
shame: but when the whole society, or a considerable part of 
it, is involyed in a common crime, there is no possibility of 
putting such a multitude of criminals out of countenance, 
because they will encourage and hear up one another: and 
therefore in that case to exercise severity of discipline upon 
them, is only to make it despised by them, and throw the 
Church into schisms and convulsions, by the opposition of the 
turbulent and factious, and to scandalize the weak and in- 
judicious, who will be led away by the powerful side, and 
perish by rooting out the tares before the time. St. Austin 
argues this matter frequently with the Donatists, who were for 
having a Church without spot and wrinkle upon earth, and for 


indignitatis impatientem, satius for- siam convertisse. Satius fuisset gla- 
tasse fuisset ab istius sententie dium in vagina continuisse, quam 
seyeritate abstinuisse, quam furo- in jacturam et perniciem ecclesiz et 
rem armatum in seipsum et eccle-_ religionis evaginasse, &c. 


150 The objects of XVI. iii. 
rooting out the tares wherever they found them, whatever 
consequences might attend it. Though, he observes, they did 
not keep to their own rule; for they tolerated one Optatus 
Gildonianus, a most infamous man, noted for his villanies over 
all Afric, and did not excommunicate him, for fear he should 
have carried off a multitude with him, and have broken their 
communion by new schisms and subdivisions among themselves. 
St. Austin 57 does not blame them for this, but only objects it 
to them as an argument ad hominem, to show them that 
they ought not to blame the Church for doing that in neces- 

‘sity, which they themselves were forced to do upon the like 
occasion. As to the practice of the Church, he freely owns, 
she was forced many times to tolerate the tares among the 
wheat, when they were grown numerous, and it was dangerous 
to eradicate them by the rough means of severe discipline, for 
fear of overturning the Church, and destroying its unity and 
peace by dangerous schisms, and scandalizing more weak souls 
that way than they could hope to gain by the other. It was 
so in Cyprian’s time, he says, and it was so in his own. He 
often repeats and urges upon this occasion that famous passage 
of Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis, where speaking of the 
reasons of God’s visiting the Church with that terrible per- 
secution, he plainly intimates, that such numbers both of the 
clergy and laity had corrupted their morals, that good men 


could do nothing but mourn, 
they could from partaking in 
then be done by the exercise 


57 Ep. 164. [4]. 87.] ad Emerit. 
Donatist. (t. 2. p. 210 b.) Non ergo 
reprehendimus, si eo tempore, ne 
multos secum excommunicatus tra- 
heret, et communionem vestram 
schismatis furore precideret, eum 
excommunicare noluistis. Sed hoc 
ipsum est, quod vos arguit in judi- 
cio Dei, frater Emerite, quod, cum 
videritis tam magnum malum esse, 
dividi partem Donati, ut Optatus 
potius in communione tolerandus 
existimaretur, quam illud admittere- 
tur, permanetis in eo malo, quod in 
dividenda ecclesia Christi a vestris 
majoribus perpetratum est.— Ep. 


and keep themselves as well as 
their sins: but that could not 
of discipline, by reason of the 


170. [4]. 52.] ad Severin. (t. 2. p. 
119 f.).... Vos nostis, maxime quia 
tam multi scelerati apud eos emer- 
serunt, et toleraverunt illos per tot 
aunos, ne partem Donati conscin- 
derent, &c.—Ep. 171. [4]. 76.] ad 
Donatistas. (ibid. p. 180g, p. 181 a.) 
Si malorum permixtionem timeretis, 
Optatum inter vos in apertissima 
iniquitate viventem per tot annos 
non teneretis—Cont. Ep. Parme- 
nian. 1. 2. c. 2. (t.'0. Β' πον 
Optatum Gildonianum, decennalem 
totius Africe gemitum; tanquam 
sacerdotem atque collegam hono- 
rantes, in communione tenuerunt, 


ὃ 6. 


ecclesiastical censures. 151 


numbers of all orders that were to be subjects of it; many of 
those, who were to exercise it, being themselves the most 
obnoxious: and it was not to be expected that they should 
be very forward to put it in execution. So that the disease 
being grown too obstinate and strong to be cured this way, 
there remained no other remedy but the severity of a divine 
judgment, to rectify by an extraordinary scourge, what human 
power could not do in the ordinary way at such a juncture. 
‘The Lord,’ says Cyprian 5’, ‘was therefore minded himself 
to prove his family, and because a long peace had corrupted 
the discipline that was given us from heaven, the divine 
judgment stepped in to raise up that faith which was fallen 
and almost laid asleep. All men’s minds were set upon aug- 
menting their estates; and forgetting what the first Christians 
did in the times of the Apostles, and what they ought always 
to do, they by an insatiable ardour of covetousness only 
studied to increase their fortunes. There was no true reli- 
gion or devotion in the priests, no sincere faith in the minis- 


58 De Lapsis, p. 123. (pp. 88, 89.) 
Dominus probari familiam suam vo- 
luit, et quia traditam nobis divinitus 
disciplinam pax longa corruperat, 
jacentem fidem, et pene dixerim dor- 
mientem, censura ccelestis erexit ; 
cumque nos peccatis nostris am- 
plius pati mereremur, clementissi- 
mus Dominus sic cuncta moderatus 
est, ut hoc omne, quod gestum est, 
exploratio potius quam persecutio 
videretur. Studebant augendo pa- 
trimonio singuli; et obliti quid cre- 
dentes, aut sub Apostolis ante fecis- 
sent, aut semper facere deberent, 
insatiabili cupiditatis ardore ampli- 
andis facultatibus incubabant. Non 
in sacerdotibus religio devota, non 
in ministris fides integra, non in 
operibus misericordia, non in mori- 
bus disciplina. Corrupta barba in 
yiris, in fcminis forma fucata. 
Adulterati post Dei manus oculi, 
capilli mendacio colorati. Ad de- 
cipienda corda simplicium callide 
fraudes, circumveniendis fratribus 
subdole voluntates : jungere cum in- 
fidelibus vinculum matrimonii, pro- 
stituere Gentilibus membra Christi : 
non jurare tantum temere, sed ad- 


huc etiam pejerare: prepositos su- 
perbo timore contemnere, venenato 
sibi ore maledicere, odiis pertinaci- 
bus invicem dissidere : episcopi plu- 
rimi, quos et hortamento esse opor- 
tet czteris et exemplo, divina pro- 
curatione contempta, procuratores 
rerum secularium fieri, derelicta 
cathedra, plebe deserta, per alienas 
provincias oberrantes, negotiationis 
queestuose nundinas aucupari, esu- 
rientibus in ecclesia fratribus non 
subyenire, habere argentum largiter 
velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus 
rapere, usuris multiplicantibus fo- 
nus augere. Quid non perpeti tales 
pro peccatis ejusmodi mereremur? 
cum jam pridem premonuerit’ ac 
dixerit censura divina, Si derelique- 
rint legem meam, et in judiciis meis 
non observarint ; visitabo in virga 
facinora eorum, et in flagellis delicta 
eorum. Prznuntiata sunt ista nobis, 
et ante preedicta: sed nos, date legis 
et observationis immemores, id egi- 
mus per nostra peccata, ut, dum 
Domini mandata contempsimus, ad 
correctionem delicti et probationem 
fidei remediis severioribus venire- 
mus. 


152 The olyects of XVI. τὴς 


ters, no mercy in their works, no discipline in their morals. 
Effeminacy and fraud were reigning vices both in men and 
women. They made no scruple to marry with infidels, and 
prostitute the members of Christ to the Heathen. They were 
equally given both to profane swearing, and perjury, to con- 
temn their governors with swelling pride, to curse themselves 
with venomous tongues, and with inveterate hatred and ani- 
mosities to quarrel with one another. Many bishops, who 
ought to have been both monitors and examples to the rest, 
forsook their divine calling, to take upon them the manage- 
ment of secular affairs; and leaving their sees, and deserting 
their people, they rambled about other provinces, seeking for 
such business as would bring them in gain and advantage. In 
the mean time they suffered the poor of the Church to starve, 
whilst they themselves minded nothing but heaping up riches, 
and getting of estates by fraud and violence, by usury and 
extortion. What did we not deserve to suffer for such sins as 
these? Our crimes required, that for the correction of our 
manners, and the trial of our faith, God should bring us to 
severer remedies.’ 

Cyprian here plainly intimates that in such a corrupt state 
of affairs the discipline of the Church could not be maintained 
or be rightly put in execution. He was forced to endure these 
colleagues of his, who were covetous, rapacious, extortioners, 
usurers, deserters, fraudulent, and cruel. It was impossible to 
exercise Church censures with any good effect, when there were 
such multitudes both of priests and people ready to oppose 
them, and distract the Church into a thousand schisms rather 
than suffer themselves to be curbed or reformed that way: 
and therefore, when no other practicable method was left, the 
_ diyine censure was necessary as the last and only remedy. 

And this is what St. Austin5? so often tells the Donatists, 
that the Church followed the example of Cyprian in this 


59 Lib. ad Donatist. post Collat. 
c. 20. (t.9. p.597 5.) Et ubi hoc 
facere gratia pacis et tranquillitatis 
ecclesiz non permittimur, non ta- 
men ideo ecclesiam negligimus, sed 
toleramus que nolumus, ut perve- 
niamus quo volumus, utentes cau- 
tela preecepti Dominici, ne cum yo- 


lumus ante tempus colligere zizania, 
simul eradicemus et triticum. Uten- 
tes etiam et exemplo et pracepto 
beati Cypriani, qui collegas suos 
foeneratores, fraudatores, raptores, 
pacis contemplatione pertulit tales, 
nec eorum contagione factus est 
talis. 


ecclesiastical censures. 153 


matter: ‘When we are not permitted to excommunicate of- 
fenders for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of the 
Church we do not therefore neglect the Church, but only 
tolerate what we would not to obtain what we would have, 
using the caution of our Lord’s command, lest whilst we gather 
out the tares before the time we should with them root up the 
wheat also: following also the example and precept of St. 
Cyprian, who endured with a view and regard to peace many 
of his colleagues who were usurers, defrauders, rapacious, and 
yet he was not infected with their contagion.’ So he says 
again®, ‘The evil is sometimes to be endured for the sake of 
the good; as the Prophets tolerated those against whom they 
spake so many hard things, and did not forsake the communion 
of the sacraments used by that people because of them; as our 


Lord himself tolerated wicked Judas to the last, and permitted 


him to communicate in the same holy supper with innocent dis- 
ciples ; as the Apostles tolerated those who preached Christ out 
of envy, which is the Devil’s sin; and as Cyprian tolerated the 
covetousness of his fellow-bishops, which he himself, according 
to the Apostle, styles idolatry.’ 

St. Austin frequently urges this example of Cyprian in other 
places: and he argues further for the necessity of the practice 
from the reason and nature of the thing itself and from the 
precepts of the Gospel. In his Book against Parmenian® he 


60 Ep. 48. [4]. 93. c.4.] ad Vin- 
cent. p. 66. (t.2. p. 237 b,c.) Non 
enim propter malos boni deseren- 
di, sed propter bonos mali tole- 
randi sunt. Sicut toleraverunt Pro- 
phetz, contra quos tanta dicebant, 
hec cOMmunionem sacramentorum 
ilius populi relinquebant.  Sicut 
ipse Dominus nocentem Judam us- 
que ad condignum ejus exitum tole- 
ravit, et eum sacram coeenam cum 
innocentibus communicare promisit. 
Sicut tolerarunt Apostoli eos, qui 
per invidiam, quod ipsius Diaboli 
vitium est, Christum annuntiabant. 
Sicut toleravit Cyprianus collegarum 
avaritiam, quam secundum Aposto- 
lum appellat idololatriam.—See to 
the same purpose Augustin de Bapt. 
1. 4. c. 9. (t. 9. p. 129 a.) Neque 
enim adversus coépiscopos suos fal- 
sum testimonium diceret. Et tamen 


eos propter Christum, qui pro in- 
firmis mortuus est, ne ante tempus 
eradicatis zizaniis simul eradicaretur 
et triticum, paternz et materne ca- 
ritatis visceribus toleravit, &c.—Id. 
cont. Ep. Parmenian. ]. 3. ¢. 2. (ibid. 
Ρ. 60 g.) Dicant ergo, si possunt, 
meliorem se atque purgatiorem ha- 
bere nunc ecclesiam, quam erat ipsa 
unitas beatissimi Cypriani tempori- 
bus, qui collegas suos, a quibus ta- 
men nulla corporali disjunctione 
separatus est, nullum eorum nomi- 
natim appellans, sed, prudenter ac 
sobrie saluberrime mordacitatis in- 
ferens medicinam, his verbis graviter 
arguit, &c, 

61 L.3. ¢.2. (ibid. p.64 b.) Nam et 
ipse Dominus, cum servis volenti- 
bus zizania colligere dixit, Sinite 
ulraque crescere usque ad messem, 
premisit caussam, dicens, Ne forte, 


154 The objects of XVI. iii, 


shows at large, when excommunication or anathematizing is to 
be used, and when not. ‘It may be used, when there is no 
danger of rooting up the wheat together with the tares: that 
is, when a man’s crime is so notorious to all, and appears so 
execrable to all, that he has no defenders, or not so many or 
so powerful as to make a schism; then the severity of discipline 
ought not to sleep, for then it will be effectual to correct his 
wickedness, when all charitably and unanimously join to con- 
firm the sentence. And then it is that there is no danger 
hereby of prejudicing peace and unity, or of doing harm to the 
wheat, when the whole multitude or congregation of the Church 
is free from the crime that is anathematized. For then they 
will be ready to assist the bishop in his correction, and not the 
criminal in his resistance. Then they will abstain from his 
society for his good, and no one will so much as eat with him, 
not out of enmity, but for brotherly coercion. Then he also 
will be smitten with fear and cured by shame, when he sees 
himself anathematized by the whole Church, and can find no 
company to encourage him to rejoice in his crime or help him 
to insult the virtuous. ‘ And therefore,’ he says, ‘ the Apostle re- 
quires that “such an one’s punishment (or censure) should be in- 


cum vultis colligere zizania, eradicetis 
simul et triticum. Ubi satis ostendit, 
cum metus iste non subest, sed om- 
nino de frumentorum certa stabili- 
tate certa securitas manet, id est, 
quando ita cujusque crimen notum 
est, et omnibus exsecrabile apparet, 
ut vel nullos prorsus, vel non tales 
habeat defensores, per quos possit 
schisma contingere: non dormiat 
severitas discipline, in qua tanto est 
efficacior emendatio pravitatis, quan- 
to diligentior conservatio caritatis. 
Tunc autem hoc sine labe pacis et 
unitatis, et sine lesione frumentorum 
fieri potest, cum congregationis ec- 
clesize multitudo ab eo crimine, quod 
anathematur, aliena est. unc au- 
tem adjuvat prepositum potius cor- 
ripientem, quam criminosum resis- 
tentem: tunc se ab ejus conjunctione 
salubriter continet, ut nec cibum 
quisquam cum eo sumat, non rabie 
imimica, sed coércitione fraterna. 
Tunc etiam ille et timore percutitur, 
et pudore sanatur, cum ab universa 
ecclesia se anathematum  videns, 


sociam turbam, cum qua in delicto 
suo gaudeat, et bonis insultet, non 
potest invenire. Ad hoc enim et 
ipse Apostolus ait, Si quis frater 
nominatur. In eo, quippe, quod ait, 
Si quis, nihil aliud videtur signifi- 
care voluisse, nisi eum posse tali 
modo salubriter corrigi, qui inter 
dissimiles peccat, id est, inter eos, 
quos peccatorum similium pestilentia 
non corrumpit. In eo vero, quod 
ait, nominatur, hoc nimirum intelligi 
voluit, parum esse, ut si quisque 
talis, nisi etiam nominetur, id est, 
famosus appareat, ut possit omnibus 
dignissima videri, que in eum fuerit 
anathematis prolata sententia. Ita 
enim et salva pace corrigitur, et non 
interfectorie percutitur, sed medici- 
naliter uritur. Propterea et de illo 
dixit, quem tali medicina sanari vo- 
luerat, Satis huie est correptio, que 
jit a muitis. Neque enim potest 
esse salubris a multis correptio, nisi 
cum ille corripitur, qui non habet 
sociam multitudinem. Cum vero 
idem morbus plurimos occupaverit, 


ecclesiastical censures. 155 


flicted of many.” For a censure is of no advantage, except 
when such an one is corrected as has not a multitude on his 
side to uphold him. But when the same disease has seized a mul- 
titude, good men in that case can do nothing further but grieve 
and mourn. And therefore the same Apostle, when he found 
a multitude among the Corinthians who were defiled with un- 
cleanness and lasciviousness and fornication, writing to them in 
his Second Epistle, he does not command them, “with such not 
to eat,” as he had done before: for they were many, and he 
could not now say, “If any brother be a notorious fornicator, 
or an idolater, or covetous, or the like, with such an one no 
not to eat.” But he says, “ Lest when I come again my God 
will humble me among you, and I shall bewail many who have 
sinned, and have not repented of the uncleanness and lascivi- 
ousness and fornication which they have committed :” threaten- 
ing them by his bewailing that they should be punished by the 
divine scourge, rather than that punishment which consisted in 
men’s withdrawing from their society. His mourning would 
obtain of the Lord a scourge to correct them, who could not 
now by reason of their multitude be corrected in such manner, 


as that others should abstain 


nihil aliud bonis restat, quam dolor 
et gemitus; ut per illud signum, 
quod Ezechieli sancto revelatur, il- 
lesi evadere ab illorum vastatione 
mereantur .... Ideoque (g.) idem 
Apostolus, cum jam multos com- 
perisset immunda luxuria et fornica- 
tionibus inquinatos, ad eosdem Co- 
rinthios in Secunda Epistola scri- 
bens, non itidem precipit, ut cum 
talibus nec cibum sumereut. Multi 
enim erant, nec dici de his poterat, 
Si quis frater nominatur fornicator, 
aut idolis serviens, aut avarus, aut 
aliquid tale, cum ejusmodi nec cibum 
quidem simul sumere ; sed ait, Ne 
iterum cum venero ad vos, humiliet 
me Deus, et lugeam multos ex iis, qui 
ante peccaverunt, et non egerunt pe- 
nitentiam super immunditia, et luxu- 
ria, et fornicatione, quam gesserunt : 
per luctum suum potius eos divino 
flagello coércendos minans, quam 
per illam correptionem, ut ceteri ab 
eorum conjunctione se contineant. 
Consequenter enim dicit, Ecce tertio 
hoc veniam ad vos: in ore duorum 


from their society and make 


vel trium testium stabit omne verbum. 
Predixi, et predico sicut presens 
secundo, et nunc absens ws, qui 
ante peccaverunt, et ceteris omnibus 
quia, si venero iterum, non parcam ; 
quia probationem queritis ejus, qui 
in me loquitur Christus. Quid aliud 
dixit hic, Non parcam, nisi quod su- 
perius ait, Et lugeam multos: ut 
luctus ejus impetraret flagellum a 
Domino, quo illi corriperentur, qui 
jam propter multitudinem non po- 
terant ita corripi, ut ab eorum con- 
junctione se ceteri continerent, et 
eos erubescere facerent, sicut faci- 
endum est, si quis frater in aliquo 
ceteris dissimili crimine nominetur? 
Et revera, si contagio peccandi mul- 
titudinem invaserit, divine discipli- 
nz severa misericordia necessaria 
est: nam consilia separationis et 
inania sunt, et perniciosa atque sa- 
crilegia: quia et impia et superba 
fiunt, et plus perturbant infirmos 
bonos, quam corrigunt animosos 
malos, 


156 The objects of 


them ashamed, as it may be done in the case of a single 
brother, who is noted for a crime from which all the rest are 
free. And indeed when the contagion of sin has imvaded a 
whole multitude it is then necessary for God to visit them out 
of mercy with the severity of his own divine censure: for in 
that case exhortations to avoid the company of sinners are not 
only vain but pernicious and sacrilegious, because impious and 
proud, tending more to disturb good men that are weak, than 
to correct the stubbornness and animosity of the evil.’ And 
therefore he observes, ‘that St. Paul treated the single in- 
cestuous Corinthian, and the multitude that denied the resur- 
rection, in a different way: he did not command the Corinthi- 
ans to make a corporal separation from them, for they were 
many, not like that one who had married his father’s wife, 
whom he judged worthy of a freer censure and excommunica- 
tion. There was one way to be taken with a single person, 
another to cure and heal a multitude, lest if the people were 
divided from one another by parties the wheat also should be 
rooted up by the mischief of schism. And therefore the Apo- 
stle does not enjoin those who believed the resurrection to 
separate corporally from those who did not believe it in the 
same people, though he never ceases to separate them spiritually 
by frequent admonitions to beware of joining in their impious 
opinions.’ He says further, ‘ When such eyil men are tole- 
rated in the Church, good men who are displeased with them, 
and know not how to mend them, neither dare to root out the 
tares before the time of the harvest, for fear they should root 
up the wheat also, do not communicate with their wicked deeds, 


62 Lib. ad Donatist. post Collat. 
δ. 21. (t.9. p.602 g.)....Non eis 
precepit corporalem separationem : 
multi quippe erant, non sicut ille 
unus, qui uxorem patris sui habuit, 
quem hberiore correptione et ex- 
communicatione judicat dignum. 
Longe aliter iste, aliter vitiosa cu- 
randa et sananda est multitudo, ne 
forte si plebs a plebe separetur, per 
schismatis nefas etiam triticum era- 
dicetur. Eos ergo qui jam crede- 
bant resurrectionem mortuorum, ab 
his, qui eam in eodem populo non 
credebant, non corporaliter Aposto- 
lus separat, sed tamen spiritaliter 
separare non cessat, dicens, Nolite 


seduci, corrumpunt bonos mores col- 
loquia mala. 

63 Ep. 162. [al. 43. c. 8.] ad Episc. 
Donatist. p. 280. (t. 2. Ρ. 98 a.).... 
Quibus autem displicent [mali], et 
eos emendare non possunt, neque 
ante tempus messis audent zizania 
eradicare, ne simul eradicent et tri- 
ticum, non factis eorum, sed altari 
Christi communicant: ita ut non 
solum non ab eis maculentur, sed 
etiam divinis verbis laudari predi- 
carique mereantur, quoniam ne no- 
men Christi per horribilia schismata 
blasphemetur, pro bono unitatis to- 
lerant, quod pro bono equitatis 
oderunt. 


XVI. ui 


EO 


ecclesiastical censures. 157 


but with the altar of Christ: so that they are not only not 
polluted by them, but deserve divine praise, because, rather 
than the name of Christ should be blasphemed by horrible 
schisms, they tolerate for the good of unity what they other- 
wise hate for the love of equity.’ This he shows to be a thing 
praiseworthy from various examples both of the Old and New 
Testament, and the practice of our Saviour and his Apostles, 
which are too numerous and long to be here inserted. He 
says more briefly in another Epistle, ‘ that the wicked do not 
hurt the good in the Church, though they be notoriously evil, 
if either there be no power to cast them out of communion, or 
some considerations of preserving peace hinder the doing of it.’ 
And again®’, ‘ Although there be some whom we cannot cor- 
rect, and necessity compels us for the sake of others to allow 
them to communicate in the divine sacraments, yet we do not 
communicate with them in their sins, which is never done but 
by favouring and consenting to them. For we only tolerate 
them in the Church as tares among the wheat, and as chaff 
mingled with the corn in this floor of unity, and as bad fish 
among the good enclosed in the nets of the word and sacra- 
ments, till the time of harvest or winnowing or drawing to 
shore comes ; lest with them we should root up the wheat: or 
by separating the corn in the floor before the time rather ex- 
pose it to the fowls of the air to devour it than purge it to be 
laid up in the garner; or should break the nets by schisms, 


64 Ep. 164. [al. 87.] ad Emerit. 
(ibid. 209 c.)....Illud non est ta- 
cendum, etiam cognitos malos bonis 
non obesse in ecclesia, si eos a com- 
Mmunione prohibendi aut potestas 
desit, aut aliqua ratio conservande 
pacis impediat. 

6 Ep. 166. [3]. 105. ¢.5.] (t. 2. 
Ρ- 303 a, b.).... Quos autem corri- 
gere non valemus, etiamsi necessitas 
cogit pro salute ceterorum ut Dei 
sacramenta nobiscum communicent, 
peccatis tamen eorum non commu- 
nicemus, quod non fit nisi consenti- 
endo et favendo. Sic enim eos in 
isto mundo, in quo ecclesia Catho- 
lica per omnes gentes diffunditur, 
quem agrum suum Dominus dicit, 
tanquam zizania inter triticum, vel in 
hac unitatis areatanquam paleam per- 


mixtam frumento, vel intra retia verbi 
et sacramenti tanquam malos pisces 
cum bonis inclusos, usque ad tem- 
pus messis, aut ventilationis, aut lit- 
toris toleramus, ne propter illos era- 
dicemus et triticum, aut grana nuda 
ante tempus de area separata, non in 
horreum mittenda purgemus, sed 
volatilibus colligenda projiciamus, 
aut, disruptis per schismata retibus, 
dum quasi malos pisces cayemus, in 
mare perniciose libertatis exeamus. 
Propter hoc enim his atque aliis 
similitudinibus Dominus servorum 
suorum tolerantiam confirmavit ; ne, 
dum se boni putant malorum per- 
mixtione culpari, per humanas et 
temerarias dissentiones aut parvulos 
perdant, aut parvuli pereant. 


158 The oljects of 


and, by over-abundant caution to cast out the bad fish, should 
open a way of pernicious liberty for the rest to return into the 
sea again. For this reason our Lord made use of these and 
the like parables to confirm the forbearance of his servants, 
lest if the good should think themselves to blame for mingling 
with the evil, they should either destroy the weak by human 
and hasty dissensions, or themselves become weak and perish.’ 
He pursues the same argument at large in his Epistle to Ma- 
crobius®, and his Books against Gaudentius 66, and many other 
places 67 : but what I have already produced abundantly shows 
his sense of this matter, and not only his sense, but the con- 
current opinion and practice of the whole African Church both 
in the time of Cyprian and the Collation of Carthage, to which 
he refers. 

So that upon the whole matter their opinion appears plainly 
to be this, that when a multitude of sinners in the Church 
made it dangerous to exercise discipline upon them, it was 
more expedient to endure the bad among the good, rather 
than, by trying to purge them out by the severity of censures, 
to endanger breaking of the nets, and involve the Church in 
terrible schisms, to the scandal of the weak and no benefit to 
the Church, whilst together with the tares they rooted up the 
wheat also. And this practice in difficult times is generally 
allowed to be expedient by modern writers, among whom the 
learned reader may consult Richerius 68, Estius ©, Lyra 70, 


6 Ep. 255. [4]. 108. c. 3.] (ibid. 
Ῥ. 308 c.) Pisces quippe illi, de qui- 
bus in evangelio Dominus loquitur, 
boni et mali intra eadem retia.... 
usque ad finem seculi....pariter 
natant corporibus mixti, sed moribus 
separati.—See especially, ibid. ἢ. 10. 
(p. 309 d.) Ipse ergo ille Cyprianus, 


it Laas 63 ἘΣ {Ὁ ἢ. 807.) δ: 5. 
nls ee (p. 671.) 

7 kp. fo: [al. an ad Restitut. 
(t. 2. p.877 e.)....Ita prope nulla 
est [scil. pagina sanctorum libro- 
rum], que nos non admoneat intus 
in ipsa societate sacramentorum. 
cum his, qui oderunt pacem, esse 
debere pacificus, &e.—Brevicul. Col- 
lat. die 3. c. 8. (t.9. p. 561. n. 14 
f.).....Non esse malos in ecclesia 
tolerandos, &c.—De Fid. et Oper. 


CC. 2, 3, 4, 5. (t.6. p. 166-169.) Vid. 
Collat. Carth. die 3. nn. 258 et 265. 
(CC. t. 2. pp. 1495, seqq-) 

63 De Potest. Pap. in Reb. Tem- 
poral. 1.3. 6. 4. n.6. (pp. 293, seq.) 
Verum ut in excommunicationis et 
censurarum naturam altius penetre- 
mus, &c. 

69 In 2 Cor. 10, 6. (p. 509.) Ac- 
cipitur illa excommunicatio de iis, 
qui adhuc inter Corinthios magnis 
peccatis erant obnoxii; in quos, quia 
multi erant, non facile poterat ex- 
erceri disciplina per excommunica- 
tionem, &e. 

70 Gloss. in Matth. 13, 29. (t. 5. 
p. 242 f.) Hic datur locus peeniten- 
tie, 6 et monemur non cito amputare : 

uoniam, qui errat hodie, cras forte 
efendet veritatem. Si ergo modo 
avelleretur, triticum, quod futurum 


XVI. iit. 


159 


Grotius7!, Bishop Taylor7*, Dr. Whitby 7, and Rivet74. For 1 
know of none but Peter Martyr? who maintains the contrary 
opinion against St. Austin. But I return to the Ancients and 
their practice. 

7. Where, among other prudent cautions observed in this The inno- 
matter, we may remark their wisdom and piety in managing °")"o)™ 
this spiritual sword, so as it might affect offenders only, and among the 
not inyolve the innocent and guiltless in the same condemnation. Srnec 
That which has been so common and so tyrannical a practice censures. 


ecclesiastical censures. 


clesiastical 

: Ε Theoriginal 
with the Popes of later ages, to lay whole Churches and nations and novelty 
under interdict, and forbid them the use of all sacraments, for sale ay 
the faults of a single criminal, was so much unknown to the 
Ancients, that St. Austin was amazed when he heard of a 
young rash African bishop, who in his warm zeal, for the 
single offence of one Classicianus, and that not evidently 
proved, had anathematized both him and his whole family 
together. Complaint of the thing being made to St. Austin, 
he thus writes to the bishop 76, to expostulate with him upon 
the fact in these terms: ‘ Being in great concern of mind, and 
my heart fluctuating as in a tempest within me, I could not but 


write to your charity, to desire you to inform me if you have 





erat, eradicaretur..... Ibi patienter 
tolerandi mali, ubi aliqui inveniun- 
tur, quibus adjuventur boni. Au- 
gustin.: Multitudo non est excom- 
municanda : nec princeps populi, §c. 

71 In 2 Cor. το, 6. (p. 852. 10.) 
Neque enim duris remediis locus 
est, ubi tota ecclesia in morbo cubat. 

72 Duct. Dubitant. b. 3. ch. 4. p. 
610. (rule 8. sect. 7. Works, v. 3. 
p- 607.) The king nor the people 
are not to be excommunicated, is 
an old rule. For if the whole multi- 
tude be excommunicate, with whom 
shall we communicate? If great 
parts of them be, they plainly make 
a schism, if they unwillingly suffer 
the censure. 

73 Protestant Reconciler, part. 2. 
(Sec. Edit. p. 257.) And to confirm 
the eement of St. Austin, &c. 

74 Synops. Purior. Theolog. disp. 
48. n. 30. (p. 717.) Sed si sola prava 
vita, non ex doctrina prava, sed con- 
tra doctrinam sanam, magnam gregis 
partem invaserit, ex sententia Au- 


gustini, Lib. 3. contra Epistolam 
Parmeniani, et alibi adversus Dona- 
tistas, nec secessione ab eis, nec 
excommunicatione, sed precibus, ge- 
mitu, adhortationibus, reprehensio- 
nibus, comminationibus, bonis ex- 
emplis, et similibus remediis tantum 
utendum : quemadmodum videmus 
prophetas et pios sacerdotes his so- 
lis armis in ecclesia Israelitica esse 
usos, quod et probat ex loco 2 Cor. 
10, quia hee potestas non ad de- 
structionem sed ad edificationem sit 
data; et ex parabola zizaniorum, 
que Christus evelli noluit sed ferri ; 
; ag metus est, ne triticum ea- 

em opera evellatur ac perdatur ; 
Matth. 13, 29. 

75 Loc. Commun. I. 4. c. 5. n. 12. 
p- 784. (pp. 554 h. 8, seqq.) 

76 Ep. 75. [4]. 250.] ad Auxilium. 
(t. 2. p. 878 c¢.).... Non mediocriter 
estuans, cogitationibus magna cor- 
dis. tempestate fluctuantibus, apud 
caritatem tuam tacere non potul: 
ut, si habes de hac re sententiam, 


160 The objects of 


any certain grounds of reason or authority of Scripture for 
your practice, how a son can rightly be anathematized for his 
father’s sin, or a wife for her husband’s, or a servant for his 
master’s? or why a child that is yet unborn, if he happens to 
be born in the family, while it lies under anathema, may not 
have the benefit of the laver of regeneration in the article of 
death? For this is not a corporal punishment, with which we 
read some despisers of God were slain with their whole families, 
though the families were not partakers in their crimes. Then 
indeed mortal bodies, which must otherwise shortly have died, 
were slain, to strike a terror into the living. But spiritual 
punishment, of which it is said, ““ Whatsoever thou shalt bind 
on earth shall be bound in heaven,” this also binds souls, of 
whom it is written, “ The soul of the father is mine, and the 
soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die.” For 
my part I can give no just reason for such anathemas, and 
therefore I have never dared to use them, even when I have 
been most highly provoked by the clamorous crime of some, 
committed insolently against the Church. If God has revealed 
it unto you, I despise not your youth, but shall be ready to 
learn how we can give a just reason either to God or man for 
inflicting spiritual punishments upon innocent souls for the sin 


aliquos magni nominis sacerdotes 


eertis rationibus vel Scripturarum 
eum domo sua quempiam anathe- 


testimoniis exploratam, nos quoque 


docere digneris, quomodo recte ana- 
themetur pro patris peccato filius, 
aut pro mariti uxor, aut pro domini 
servus, aut quisquam in domo etiam 
nondum natus, si eodem tempore, 
quo universa domus est anathemate 
obligata, nascatur, nec ei possit per 
lavacrum regenerationis in mortis 
periculo subveniri. Neque enim 
hzec corporalis est peena, qua legi- 
mus quosdam contemptores Dei cum 
suis omnibus, qui ejusdem impieta- 
tis participes non fuerunt, pariter 
interfectos. Tunc quidem ad ter- 
rorem viventium mortalia corpora 
perimebantur, quandoque utique mo- 
ritura. Spiritalis autem poena, qua 
fit quod scriptum est, Que ligaveris 
in terra, erunt ligata et in celo, 
animas obligat, de quibus dictum 
est, Anima patris mea est, et anima 
Jilti mea est. Anima, que peccave- 
rit, ipsa morietur. Audisti fortasse 


masse peccantium? Sed forte si es- 
sent interrogati, reperirentur idonei 
reddere inde rationem. Ego autem, 
quoniam si quis ex me querat, utrum 
recte fiat, quid ei respondeam, non 
invenio. Nunquam hoc facere ausus 
sum, cum de quorundam facinori- 
bus, immaniter adversus ecclesiam 
perpetratis, gravissime permoverer. 
Sed si tibi forte quoniam juste fiat, 
Dominus revelavit, nequaquam ju- 
venilem etatem tuam, et honoris 
ecclesiastici rudimenta contemno. 
En adsum, senex a juvene, et epi- 
scopus tot annorum a eollega nec- 
dum anniculo paratus sum discere, 
quomodo vel Deo vel hominibus 
justam possumus reddere rationem, 
si animas innocentes pro scelere ali- 
eno, ex quo non trahunt, sicut ex 
Adam, in quo omnes peccaverunt, 
originale peccatum, spiritali suppli- 
cio puniamus....Si ergo de hac re 


XVI. iii 


ΝΗ εἰ...» 


ecclesiastical censures. 161 
of another, from whom they derived no original sin, as they do 
from Adam, in whom all have sinned. But if you can give no 
good reason for it, why do you that out of an unadvised and 
precipitate commotion of mind, in defence of which, if any man 
ask you a reason, you have nothing to answer.’ 

From this decent reproof given to the headstrong passion of 
this young bishop, and his intemperate zeal in anathematizing 
a whole family for the crime of the master only, we may con- 
clude there was no such allowed practice in the Church in St. 
Austin’s time, as excommunicating the innocent with the guilty, 
though the innocent might have some near relation to, or un- 
avoidable dependence on, the offending parties: much less was 
it customary then to lay whole bodies, Churches or nations, 
under interdict, and forbid them the use of the sacraments, 
merely to curb or restrain the contumacy of others, of which 
they were wholly innocent, and no ways partakers. Which was 
a monstrous and novel abuse of discipline, peculiar to the ty- 
rannical times of the Papacy, and utterly unknown to former 
ages. Baronius’’, indeed, brings a single instance of it out of 
the Annals of France; where it is said, that Pope Agapetus, 
anno 535, threatened King Clotarius to put his kingdom under 
interdict, unless he made satisfaction for a barbarous and sacri- 
legious murder committed by him in the church upon one 
Gualter de Yyetot, who carried the Pope’s letters of recom- 
mendation to him. But, as this story is only told by modern 
writers, such as Du Haillan, whom Baronius quotes, and 
Gaguinus, Gilius, and Tilius, added by Spondanus, and has 
not the authority of any ancient writers, and has something 
also in the narration itself which destroys its credit with judi- 
cious men, Spondanus7* owns, there are many learned men 


potes reddere rationem, utinam et 
nobis rescribendo prestes, ut possi- 
mus et nos: si autem non potes, 
quid tibi est inconsulta commotione 
animi facere, unde, si fueris interro- 
gatus, rectam responsionem non va- 
les invenire ὃ 

77 An. 525. (t- 7. append. p. 9 b.) 
Gualterus cum literis Suessonum, 
ubi rex degebat, die Veneris sancta 
advenit; et, cum rex in sacello suo 
sacris adesset, crucemque adorare 
vellet, Gualterus predictum sacel- 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


lum intravit, pontificisque literas re- 
gi obtulit. Rex autem prima fronte 
Gualterum non agnovit propter di- 
uturnam illius e regno absentiam : 
sed, acceptis et perlectis literis ipso- 
que agnito, gladium suum exseruit ; 
vel, ut aliis placet, militis cujusdam 
astantis ensem corripuit, et Gualte- 
rum interfecit. Pontifex crudeli hoc 
facinore accensus regi mandavit, ut 
culpam illam emendaret, alioquin 
regnum ipsius interdictum fore, &c. 

78 Epitom. Baron. an. 535. n. 18. 


M 


162 


The objects of 


who reject it as a fable, prevailing only by the credulity of the 


French nation for many ages. 


And therefore it is not worthy 


to be mentioned as a piece of ancient history in the case be- 


fore us. 


Some date the original of interdicts from the time of Alexan- 
der III., about the year 1160. And indeed about this time they 


began to be very frequent. 


Habertus79 says, Morinus carries 


them a little higher, to the time of Pope Hildebrand or Gre- 
gory VII., who is most likely to be the father of them 30, for 


they are sometimes mentioned in his epistles. 


ult. (t. 2. p. 31.) Hance historiam 
regni de Yvetot, preter Halianum, 
ex quo illam descripsit Baronius, 
zeque recitant, qui ante illum scrip- 
serunt, Gaguinus, Gilius, Tilius, et 
si qui alii eorundem temporum re- 
rum Franciarum auctores: quum 
tamen vetustiores illi eam silentio 
pretermiserint. Qua ratione, et 
quod se ipsam narratio aliqua ex 
parte destruere videatur; non de- 
sunt hodie, qui inter fabulas recen- 
seant, quee constanti credulitate per 
multa seecula obtinuit in Gallia. 

79 Archierat. Ad Censur. Pontif. 
observ. 5. (p. 746.) De interdicto 
vero apud Grecos aliquid e penu 
nostra. Duplex interdictum, quo 
divina officia actione, ut inquiunt, et 
passione prohibentur, scio triplex a 
doctoribus distingui, locale, per- 
sonale, et ex utraque compositum. 
Sed locum et gentem proprie respi- 
cit. Illus epochen, quod quidam 
ante tempora Alexandri tertii inau- 
ditum interdictum dixerint, recte 
antiquiorem in Occidente ostendit 
Morinus ex Ivone Carnot. epist. 50. 
et Gregorio Septimo, 1. 1. epist. 81. 
et 1. 2. epist. 5. et aliis, imo et ex 
Concilio Lemovicensi, an. 1034, a- 
pud Baronium. Verum longe anti- 
quiorem esse interdicti usum apud 
Grecos, ostendimus ex S. Basilio. 
Locus eximius et observatione dig- 
nissimus est Epistola ad episcopum 
guendam 244., in qua agit de qua- 
dam puella rapta parentibus restitu- 
enda, raptore una cum consciis ex- 
communicando per triennium, et si 
raptam reddere negaverint, pago ip- 
so sacris interdicendo. Τὴν μὲν παῖ- 


Habertus him- 


δα, ὅπουπερ ἂν εὕρῃς, ἀφελόμενος 
πάσῃ εὐτονίᾳ ἀποκατάστησον τοῖς γο- 
vevou καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ ἐκεῖνον ἐξόρισον 
τῶν εὐχῶν καὶ ἐκκήρυκτον ποίησον" 
καὶ τὴν κώμην τὴν ὑποδεξαμένην τὴν 
ἁρπαγεῖσαν καὶ φυλάξασαν, ἤ ἤτοι. ὑπερ- 
μαχήσασαν, καὶ αὐτὴν ἔξω τῶν εὐ- 

ὧν πανδημεὶ ποίησον. 

80 Vid. Greg. VII. 1.1. Ep.81. (CC. 
t. 10. p. 64 c.) Confrater noster The- 
odoricus Virdunensis episcopus, ut 
sepe nobis relatum est, habitatores 
loci apud monasterium quoddam 
sancti Michaelis infra parochiam 
suam, ad quasdam novas consuetu- 
dines sua virtute et potentia flectere 
et coércere diu conatus est, videlicet 
ut cum litaniis majorem ecclesiam, 
hoc est, suam episcopalem sedem, 
simul congregati singulis annis visi- 
tarent. Quod cum illi inusitatum, 
ne forte ad alterius nove exactionis 
occasionem darent, pati renuerent, 
divinum ibi officium fieri penitus 
interdixit, &e.— L. 2. Ep. 5. (ibid. 
p- 74 a.) Quod si vos audire noluerit 
[rex Francie] et abjecto timore Dei 
contra regium decus, contra suam 
et populi salutem, in duritia cordis 
sui perstiterit, apostolic animad- 
versionis gladium nequaquam eum 
diutius effugere posse, quasi ex ore 
nostro sibi notificate. Propter quod 
et vos, apostolica auctoritate commo- 
niti atque constricti, matrem vestram 
sanctam Romanam et apostolicam 
ecclesiam debita fide et obedientia 
imitemini, et ab ejus vos obsequio 
atque Communione penitus separan- 
tes, per universam Franciam omne 
divinum officium publice celebrari 
interdicite, &c, 


XVI. i 


ecclesiastical censures. 163 


7, 8. 


self pretends to make them as ancient as St. Basil. But the 
place out of Basil’s Epistles8! says no more, but that when a 
whole Church make themselves partakers of another man’s sins 
they may be censured all together. Which is very far from 
the indiscriminating censure of an interdict, which condemns a 
whole nation, and that commonly for no crime, but rather their 
duty, for adhering conscientiously to their natural allegiance 
due to their lawful sovereigns, when the Pope 15 pleased to ex- 
communicate and depose them under pretence of the plenitude 
of ecclesiastical power, as any one, that would write the history 
of interdicts, might easily demonstrate. Whatever St. Basil 
meant, it is certain he had not this in his thoughts: neither was 
it the usual practice of the Church to anathematize whole bo- 
dies of men, though guilty, unless it was for terror’s sake, as 
has been shown in the foregoing section. 

8. As to innocent persons, all care imaginable was taken The danger 
that the censures of the Church should not be abused by any es Becsorr ἡ 
indiscreet application of them to the condemnation of the guilt- innocent 
less. In which case, an unjust sentence was thought to recoil seins 
upon the head of him that executed it. Thus Firmilian®? told 
Pope Stephen, ‘that in cutting off others, who did not deserve 
it, he cut off himself. Be not deceived, for he is the true 
schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion 
of the ecclesiastical unity. For while you think you can excom- 
municate all others, you only excommunicate yourself from 
them.’ In like manner Polycrates*%*, bishop of Ephesus, an- 
swered Pope Victor, when he threatened to excommunicate him 
and all the Asiatic Churches for not observing Easter in the 
same manner as they did at Rome: ‘he was not afraid of his 
menaces,’ he told him, ‘ for he had learned of those that were 
greater than he, to obey God rather than man.’ And Eusebius 
adds, ‘ that when Victor persisted still in this headstrong reso- 

Jution, Ireneus and several other bishops wrote very sharply 


- τς 





81 Ep.244.[al. 270. | Sine inscript. 
(t. 3. part. 2. ἢ. 603 6.).... Τὴν μὲν 
maida, κιτ. Δ. See the latter part of 
n. 79, preceding. 

Ep. 75. ap. Cypr. p. 228. (p. 

26.) Excidisti teipsum. Noli te fal- 
ere. Siquidem ille est vere schisma- 
ticus, qui se a communione eccle- 
Siastice unitatis apostatam fecerit. 


Dum enim putas omnes a te absti- 
neri posse, solum te ab omnibus ab- 
stinuisti. 

83 Ep. ad Victor. ap. Euseb. 1. 5. 
6. 24. (Vv. 1. p. 244.21.) Οὐ πτύρομαι 
ἐπὶ τοῖς καταπλησσομένοις, κ. τ. A.— 
Conf. Augustin. de Ver. Relig. c. 6. 
tot. (t.1. p. 751 6.) Hee enim ec- 
clesia Catholica, &c. 


M 2 


164 The objects of XVL. ui 


to him,—zAnxrixérepov,—reproving him for his unwarrantable 
abuse of the Church’s censures. 

It is a noted saying in the Index to the Works of Pope 
Gregory I.,54 upon this account, ‘If any one excommunicate 
another unjustly, he does not condemn him, but himself.’ 
Though the Romanists commonly magnify another saying of 
his, transcribed into the Canon Law*°, ‘The sentence of the 
shepherd is to be dreaded, whether it be just or unjust ;’ 
which can certainly never be true, but in a very doubtful case. 
It is much more to the purpose, what Gratian in the same 
Question alleges from St. Austin®®, ‘that a man had need be 
very careful whom he binds on earth: for unjust bonds will be 
loosed by the justice of Heaven; and not only so, but turn to 
the condemnation of him that imposes them: for though rash 
judgment often hurts not him who is rashly judged 57, yet the 
rashness of him that judges rashly will turn to his own disad- 
vantage. In the mean time, it is no detriment to a man®$ to 
have his name struck out of the diptychs of the Church by hu- 
man ignorance, if an evil conscience do not blot him out of the 
book of life.’ Thus far St. Austin in several places, alleged by 
Gratian, to which may be added what he cites out of the fore- 
said place of Gregory 59, ‘that he deprives himself of the power 


84 L. 2. Ep. 24. Si quis illicite 
quenquam excommunicat, semet ip- 
sum, non illum, condemnat. [ Vid. 
Gratiani Decretum, caus. 24. quest. 
8. 6. 2. (ap. Corp. Jur. Canon. t. τ. 
p- 1418. 41.) Illicita autem excommu- 
nicatio notatum non ledit, sed ex- 
communicantem. Unde Gregorius 
scribit Magno, Mediolanensi episco- 
po, 1. 2. [corrige, 3.] ep. 26. (Oper. 
Greg. Paris. 1705. t. 2. p. 642. Gre- 
gorius Magno, presbytero Ecclesie 
Mediolanensi.) Qui illicite, &¢c.:— 
which words, however, are no part 
of Gregory’s Epistle itself as refer- 
red to, but merely the epitomizer’s 
abstract of the spirit of Gregory’s 
remarks, while releasing Magnus 
from the unjust excommunication, 
which Laurentius (quoniam frater et 
coépiscopus noster) had illegally in- 
flicted on him. Ep.] 

85 Hom. 26. in Evangel. ap. Gra- 
tian. caus. 11. quest. 3. 6.1. (t. I. 
p. 920. 9.) Sententia pastoris, sive 


justa, sive injusta fuerit, timenda est. 

86 Serm. 16. de Verb. Dom. [al. 
82. Oper. Augustin. t.5. p. 442 g.] 
ap. Gratian. ibid. c. 48. (p. 939. 16.) 
Ut juste alliges, vide. Nam injusta 
vincula dirumpit justitia. 

87 De Serm. Dom. in Mont. 
2. c. 18. ap. Gratian. ibid. c. 49. 
(p. ead. 35.) Temerarium judicium 
plerumque nihil nocet ei, de quo te- 
mere judicatur. Ei autem, qui te- 
mere judicat, ipsa temeritas necesse 
est ut noceat. 

88 Ep. 137. [al. 78. Oper. Au- 
gustin. t. 2. p. 184 e.] ap. Gratian. 
ibid. c. 5. (p. ead. 46.) Quid enim 
obest homini, quod ex illa tabula 
non vult eum recitari humana igno- 
rantia, si de libro vivorum non eum 
delet iniqua conscientia ὃ 

89 Hom. 26. in Evangel. ap. Gra- 
tian. caus. 11. quest. 3. c. 6o. (t. 1. 
Ρ- 943. 12.) Ipse ligandi atque sol- 
vendi potestate se privat, qui hanc 
pro suis voluntatibus, et non pro 


8, 9. ecclesiastical censures. 165 


of binding and loosing, who exercises it according to his arbi- 
trary will, and not according to the deserts of those that are 
under his government.’ He means, that an excommunication, 
unjustly pronounced, is of no force against one that deserves it 
not; neither is the absolution of an impenitent sinner any bet- 
ter; because they are both done clave errante, by a misappli- 
cation of the keys: in which case, as the Gloss upon the Law9° 
words it, ‘the party so bound is not bound before God: for it 
often happens, that by this means a man is excommunicated 
out of the Church militant, who notwithstanding is in the 
Church triumphant.’ And such excommunications, says Car- 
dinal Tolet?!, bind neither before God nor the Church. 

9. Now to prevent this inconvenience, the ancient Church No one to 
prescribed several useful rules to be observed in the matter of ee 
excommunication. For besides that ordinarily no one was to Without 

: = ΠΗ Ms being first 
be censured without a previous admonition, as has been noted heard, and 
before 92, it was likewise ordered, that no man should be con- pesatias 
demned in his absence, without being allowed liberty to himself. 
answer for himself, unless he contumaciously refused to ap- 
pear. ‘ Let ecclesiastical judges beware,’ says the Council of 
Carthage %, ‘that they never pronounce sentence against any 
one that is absent, when his cause is under debate: otherwise 
the sentence shall be void, and they shall give an account of 
their action to the synod.’ Upon this ground St. Austin 91: 


subjectorum moribus exercet.—Ge- 
las. ap. Gratian. ibid. c. 46. (p. 938. 
65.) Cui est illata sententia, deponat 
errorem et vacua est: sed si injusta 
est, tanto eam curare non debet, 
quanto apud Deum et ecclesiam 
ejus neminem potest iniqua gravare 
sententia. Ita ergo ea se non ab- 
solvi desideret, qua se nullatenus 
perspicit obligatum. 

% Gloss. in Extravagant. loan. xx11. 
tit. 14. ¢. 5. p. 160. (ibid. t. 3. p. 160. 
not. τ.) Solutum et in celis sed hoc 
itellige clave non errante : alias e- 
nim si ligando vel solvendo erraret, 
ligatus vel solutus quis non dicitur 
quoad Deum. Frequenter enim fit, 
ut, qui per ecclesiam militantem fo- 
ras mittitur, intus sit, scilicet in 
ecclesia triumphanti: et ille foris 
est, scilicet extra ecclesiam trium- 


phantem, qui intus, scilicet in ec- 
clesia militanti, retineri videtur. 

91 Instruct. Sacerdot. 1. 1. ¢. 10. 
(Ρ. 22. in cap. init.).... Imiqua sen- 
tentia, nec apud Deum nec apud ec- 
clesiam quenquam gravat. 

92 Ch. 2. 8. 6. p. 83. 

% Carth. 4. c. 30. (t. 2. p. 1202 d.) 
Caveant judices ecclesiastici [4]. ec- 
clesie], ne absente eo, cujus causa 
ventilatur, sententiam proferant, 
quia irrita erit; [immo] et causam 
in synodo pro facto [al. profecto] 
dabunt.— Vid. plura ap. Gratian. . 
caus. 3. quest. 9. c. 2. (t. I. p. 755. 
12.) Vid. Gloss. in loc. not. a. Est 
hic pro opinione illorum, &c. 

94 Ep. 162. ἢ. 279. [al. 43. c. 3.] 
(t. 2. Ρ. 93 6.) Si autem nec vitupe- 
rari, nec corripi, nisi interrogatum 
Spiritus Sanctus voluit, quanto sce- 


166 The objects of ΧΥΙ i 


refutes the censure which the Donatists pretended to pass 
upon Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, because he was absent, 
and never examined by them before they proceeded to con- 
demn him. 


aides 10. Another rule observed in this case was, that no one 
ο - . 
conviction, Should be excommunicated unless he stood legally convicted of 
either by his crime. Which might be three ways; 1. By his own con- 
his own 5 ; : 

confession, fession. 2. By the credible evidence of such witnesses as 
or credible 


ering? could not justly be excepted against, or suspected of bearing 
witnesses, false testimony. 3. By such notoriety of the fact, as made 
against : Bre he : = 

whom there 2 man liable to excommunication 980 facto, without any 
εἰ suas further process or formal denunciation: as in the case of 
ception, o ; : : ; ᾿ 
such ποῖος those that fell by offering sacrifice in time of persecution : 


ἐξ bere here was no need in this case either of their own confession, 
aman liable or conviction by witnesses ; for their crime was notorious to all 
to excom _ the world, and it needed no formal process or examination of 
ipso facto, witnesses to condemn them. Neither was there any need of a 
μων ao formal sentence of excommunication to be pronounced against 
nunciation. them; for they stood excommunicated ipso facto, as learned 
men style it: the fact itself, being evident and notorious to all, 
was sufficient to declare them excommunicate, as having forfeited 
all right to the privileges of Christian communion. In other 
cases, where the matter was not so clear, they required either 
the confession of the party himself, or the legal evidence of 
unexceptionable witnesses. Thus St. Austin 96 declares: ‘ We 
cannot exclude any one from communion, except he either 


voluntarily confess his crime himself, or be noted and con- 


victed in some secular or ecclesiastical judgment. 


leratius non vituperati aut correpti, 
sed omnino damnati sunt, qui de 
suis criminibus nihil absentes inter- 
rogari potuerunt ?—Serm. 22. de 
Verb. Apost. [al. Serm. 164. c. 8.] 
(t. 5. p- 795 a.) Sed damnatus est, 
inquiunt, Ceecilianus. Damnatus? 
A quibus? Primo absens, deinde 
a traditoribus innocens. 

% Cave, Primitive Christianity, 
part. 3. ch. 5. p. 366. (p. 344.) We 
cannot imagine that in every person 
that stood under this capacity a 
formal sentence was always de- 
nounced against him, it being many 
times sufficient that the fact he had 


For who 


done was evident and notorious, as 
in the case of the lapsed that had 
offered sacrifice; for in this case 
the offender was looked upon as 
ipso facto excommunicate, and all 
commerce forborne towards him. 

96 Hom. 50. ex 50. de Peenitent. t. 
10. p. 207. [8]. Serm. 351.] (p- 1359 
f, g.) Nos vero a communione pro- 
hibere quenquam non possumus... 
nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in 
aliquo sive seculari sive ecclesiastico 
judicio nominatum atque convictum. 
Quis enim sibi utrumque audeat as- 
sumere, ut cuiquam ipse sit et accu- 
sator et judex ὃ 


πο. 


107 


ecclesiastical censures. 


dare to assume to himself to be both accuser and judge?’ 
‘We are not to exclude any man,’ says Pope Innocent”, 
‘upon bare suspicions.’ ‘ Where the crime is not evident, 
says Origen 95, ‘we can cast no man out of the Church, lest 
while we root out the tares, we root up the wheat also.’ 
And the same reason is given by St. Austin in the place now 
cited. 

Justinian 99 confirmed this rule of the Church by a civil 
sanction, not only forbidding all bishops and presbyters to 
segregate any man from the communion before his crime was 
evidently proved against him, but ordering such an one im- 
mediately to be restored to communion; and the minister, who 
suspended him, to be suspended himself by his superior, ut, 


quod injuste fecit, juste sustineat, that he may justly suffer 


the same punishment which he unjustly inflicted on the other. 
As therefore they were not to excommunicate a whole multitude, 
though their crimes were notorious; so neither were they to 
excommunicate a single criminal, unless his crime could be 
made evident to the multitude, that they might detest and 
abhor it: then the severity of discipline was not to sleep, 
according to St. Austin’s! rule: and? if the criminal was 
aceused and also convicted by evident proofs and testimony 
before the judge, then the judge might proceed against him 


97 Ep. 3. c. 4. (CC. t. 2. p. 1256 a.) 
«~-. Non facile quisquam ex suspi- 
cionibus abstinetur .... Probatione 
cessante, vindictz ratio conquiescit. 

98 Hom. 21. in Jos. t. 1. p. 328. 
(t. 2. p. 447 b.) .... Ubi enim pec- 
catum non est evidens, ejicere de 
ecclesia neminem possumus, ne forte 
eradicantes zizania, eradicemus si- 
mul cum ipsis etiam triticum. 

% Novel. 123. c. 11. (t. 5. p. 546.) 
Omnibus autem episcopis et presby- 
teris interdicimus, segregare aliquem 
a sacra communione, antequam cau- 
8a monstretur propter quam sanctz 
regule hoc fieri jubent. Si quis 
autem preter hoc a sancta com- 
munione quenquam segregaverit: 
ille quidem, qui injuste a commu- 
nione segregatus est, solutus ex- 
communicatione a majore sacerdote, 
sanctam mereatur communionem. 
Qui vero aliquem a sancta com- 


munione segregare presumpserit : 
modis omnibus a sacerdote, sub quo 
constitutus est, separabitur a com- 
munione quanto tempore ille per- 
spexerit: ut quod injuste fecit, juste 
sustineat. 

1 Cont. Lit. Parmenian. 1. 3. c. 2. 
(t.6. p.64 Ὁ.) Quando ita cujusque 
crimen notum est omnibus, et om- 
nibus exsecrabile apparet non 
dormiat severitas discipline, &c. 

2 Serm. 22. de Verb. Apost. [al. 
164. c. 8. Oper. Augustin. t. 5. p. 
794.] ap. Gratian. caus. 23. quest. 
4. C. 11. (t. 1. p. 1300. 63.) Sane si 
judex es, si judicandi potestatem 
accepisti, ecclesiastica regula, si 
apud te accusatur, si veris docu- 
mentis testibusque convincitur, co- 
erce, corripe, excommunica, degrada. 
Sic vigilet tolerantia, ut non dormiat 
disciplina. 


168 The olyjects of XVI. iii 


lawfully, to punish, correct, excommunicate, or degrade him. 
But otherwise, without such legal conviction, no bishop could 
suspend a clerk from communion, unless he contumaciously 
refused to appear to have his cause examined before him. 
‘And this, St. Austin? says, ‘ was determined in council for 
greater security against arbitrary proceedings.’ And it is 
observable in this case, that the Canons? never allowed the 
testimony of one single witness as sufficient evidence to convict. 
a criminal; grounding upon that rule in the divine Law, “ In 
the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be 
established.” [Deut. 19,15; with 2 Cor. 13,1.] Nay, though 
it were a bishop or presbyter that accused any man, barely 
upon his own knowledge, his testimony was not sufficient 
ground to proceed against him to excommunication. For as 
we have heard St. Austin say but just now, no man could be 
both accuser and judge. And therefore it was provided by 
the Council of Vaison 5, ‘ that though a bishop knew a man to 
be a criminal, yet if he alone was privy to his crime, and could 
make no other proof of it, he should not so much as publish it, 
but deal privately with the man by admonition to bring him to 
repentance. But if, notwithstanding his admonition, he would 
persist pertinacious, and offer himself publicly to communicate, 
the bishop should not have power to excommunicate or cast 
him wholly out of the Church, but only enjoin him to recede 


3 Ep. 137. [al. 78.] (t.2. p.184d.) 
In episcoporum concilio constitu- 
tum est, nullum clericum, qui non- 
dum convictus est, suspendi a com- 
munione debere, nisi ad caussam 
suam examinandam se non pre- 
sentaverit. 

4 Vid. C. Apost. 75. [al. 74.] 
(Cotel. [c. 67.] v.13. p. 447.) Eis 
μαρτυρίαν τὴν κατ᾽ ἐπισκόπου αἱρετι- 
κὸν μὴ προσδέχεσθε, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πισ- 
τὸν ἕνα μόνον᾽ ᾿Επὶ στόματος [γὰρ] 
δύο καὶ [8]. ἢ] τριῶν μαρτύρων στα- 

᾿ θήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. [Cf. C. Dlerdens. 
ap. Crabb. ex Ivon. 1. 7. [et ex Sept. 
Libr. Vetusti Codicis Librorum Se- 
decem. num. 5. (t. 1. p. 1021.) Ut 
omnis controversia, que de eccle- 
siasticis rebus fit, secundum divi- 
nam legem (Deut. 9, 15.) sub duo- 
bus vel tribus testibus terminetur, 
testis est Dominus cum dicit (Matth. 


18, τό. 2 Cor. 13, 1.) Non unus stet 
contra alium, sed in ore ducrum 
vel trium testium stet omne ver- 
bum. Eb.] 

5 Vasens. 1. c. 8. (t. 3. p. 1458 e.) 
Si tantum episcopus alieni sceleris 
se conscium novit, quamdiu pro- 
bare non potest, nihil proferat, sed 
cum ipso ad compunctionem ejus se- 
cretis correptionibus elaboret. Quod 
[al. qui] si correptus pertinacior fu- 
erit, et se communione publice in- 
gesserit, etiam si episcopus in re- 
darguendo illo, quem reum judicat, 
probatione [al. probationibus] de- 
ficiat, indemnatus licet ab his, qui 
nihil sciunt, secedere ad tempus pro 
persona majoris auctoritatis jube- 
atur, illo, quamdiu probari nihil 
potest, m communione ommnium, 
preterquam ejus, qui eum reum 
judicat, permanente. 





110. 


169 


ecclesiastical censures. 


for a time out of respect to the bishop’s person, whilst he con- 
tinued in the communion of all those, who knew nothing of his 
offences.’ 

And even this was a greater deference paid to the single 
testimony of a bishop, than was allowed in the African 
Churches. For there, by a rule of the seventh Council of 
Carthage ®, made in St. Austin’s time, ‘if a man confessed his 
crime to a bishop, and afterwards denied it, the bishop was not 
to think he had any injury done him, if his single evidence was 
not taken by his fellow-bishops to the man’s condemnation: 
and if in such a case the bishop presumed to excommunicate 
him, upon a scruple of conscience, that he could not com- 
municate with such an one, the bishop himself was not to 
communicate with other bishops, that he might learn to be 
more cautious in saying that against any man, which he could 
not prove by any other evidence but his own testimony.’ So 
tender were these holy bishops of condemning any man without 
sufficient and legal evidence to convict him. 

St. Austin?, who was present in this Council, tells a remark- 
able story of a case of this nature, that happened between 
Boniface, one of his presbyters, and a man that was accused 
by him. Having no sufficient evidence, but only their single 
testimony on either side, he would not determine the matter 
between them, but ordered them both to go to the sepulchre 
of Felix, the martyr, in hopes that the cause might be decided 
by some apparent miracle and divine judgment, where human 
judgment could not determine it, as he says he had known it 
done, in a case of theft at Milan. He adds, that both the ec- 
elesiastical and civil law forbad the condemning any man upon 


δ Ὁ. 5. (t. 2. p. 1604 d.) Placuit, 
ut si quando episcopus dicit, ali- 
uem sibi soli proprium crimen 
uisse confessum, atque ille neget : 
non putet ad injuriam suam episco- 
pus pertinere, quod ipsi [8]. illi] soli 
non creditur : et si scrupulo propriz 
conscientie se dicit neganti nolle 
communicare, quamdiu excommu- 
nicato non communicaverit suus 
episcopus, eidem episcopo ab aliis 
non communicetur episcopis; ut 
magis caveat episcopus, ne dicat 
in quenquam, quod aliis documentis 
convincere non potest.—Conf. Cod. 


Afric. cann. 133 134: [2]. 132. 133.1 
(t. 2. p. 1134 6.) Ὁμοίως ἤρεσεν, 
x.7.A.—Augustin. Hom. 16. de Verb. 
Dom. See before, s. 8. n. 86, pre- 
ceding. 

7 Ep. 137. [al. 78. n. 3. tot.] (t. 2. 
p. 183 6. et p. 184 a.) Multis enim 
notissima est sanctitas loci, ubi 
beati Felicis Nolensis corpus con- 
ditum est, quo volui ut pergerent, 
&c.—Ibid. n. 4. (p. 184 d.) Quod 
nec in negotiis secularibus judices 
faciunt, quando cause dubitatio ad 
majorem potestatem refertur, &c. 


170 The oljects of XVI. ui 
the evidence of a single witness, as insufficient to convict him. 
The ecclesiastical law we have already heard; and for the 
civil law, it is probable he refers to a decree of Constantine, 
now exstant in the Theodosian Code’, which precisely enjoins 
all judges not to determine any cause upon the evidence of a 
single witness, though it were even a senator that was the de- 
ponent. Which Gothofred compares to a noted saying among 
the old Romans, related by Plutarch, that it was not right to 
give credit to one witness, though it were Cato himself that 
gave testimony. Whence Gothofred? also with great reason 
concludes, that the law which goes under the name of Con- 
stantine, at the end of the Theodosian Code, allowing the 
single testimony of a bishop to be good evidence, is a spurious 
law, though it be inserted into the Capitular of Charles the 
Great 1° and Gratian’s Decree 11, because it contradicts all 
other laws, both ecclesiastical and civil, upon this subject. 

It is worth observing further, that, to secure the innocence 
of virtuous men from being unjustly traduced and censured, 
there were many laws forbidding the testimony of heretics, or 
other suspected and infamous persons, to be accepted in judg- 
ment, of which, because I have had occasion to discourse of them 
elsewhere !2, I say no more in this place. But from all that has 
now been said it sufficiently appears, that though the Ancients 
were very strict and severe in their discipline, yet they were 


8 L. 11. tit. 39. de Fide Testium, 
leg. 3. (t. 4. p. 322. ad sum.)..... 
Manifeste sancimus, ut unius om- 
nino testis responsio non audiatur, 
etiam si preclare curize honore 
prefulgeat. 

9 In Cod. Theod. 1. 11. tit. 39. 
leg. 3. (ibid. p. 323. ad cale. col. 
dextr.) Et tamen sub Constantini 
Magni nomine proponitur lex 1. in- 
fra, de Episcopali Judicio, qua defi- 
nitur, Testimonium, etiam ab uno li- 
cet episcopo perhibitum, omnes judi- 
ces indubitanter accipere oportere, 
nec alium audiri; cum testimonium 
episcopi a qualibet parte fuerit re- 
promissum: additis his, Illud est 
enim veritatis auctoritate firmatum, 
illud incorruptum, quod in sacro- 
sancto homine conscientia mentis il- 
libate protulerit. Idque ita relatum 
Capitular. lib. 6. c, 281. et a Gratia- 


no, c. Omnes, 11. quest. 1. Verum 
ut de tota lege illa, ad eam dixi; ita 
et hoc suspectum est. Nam et id 
contrarium est peremptoriis hujus 
legis verbis, que sub extremis Con- 
stantini annis ab eo lata est, et Dei 
verbo, quod Constantinus M., ut 
alias, ita et hic, secutus est: Deut. 
19, 15.—L. 16. tit. 12. [al. Extra- 
vagans, | leg. 1. (t. 6. p. 306. ad cale. 
col. dextr.) Sequitur alterum: de 
testimonio unius episcopi, &c. 

10 L. 6. e. 281. [al. 366.] (Capitul. 
Reg. Francor. t. 1. p. 986.) Testi- 
monium etiam ab uno licet episcopo 
perhibitum, &c. 

11 Caus. 11. quest. 1. c. 36. (. 1. 
p. 911. 62.) Testimonium, etiam ab 
uno licet episcopo perhibitum, om- 
nes judices indubitanter accipiant, 


Ὡς 
12 B. 5. ch. 1.8.5. ¥. 80 Pr kl@s 


y 10, 11. ecclesiastical censures. 171 


equally cautious that the severity of it should not affect the 
innocent, and every man was presumed to be innocent till a 
just and legal proof could be made against him: nor was this 
an harm to the Church, it being better that some vicious men 
should escape, than that virtuous men should be exposed to 
the greatest of all punishments upon bare suspicion, or the 
arbitrary pleasure of any one man; for which reason also, as 
I have often noted, the Church still allowed an appeal from 
the unjust sentence of any bishop to the re-examination of a 
provincial Council. 

11. Another sort of persons, whom the censures of the ee 
Church seldom or never touched, were minors, or children ordinarily 
under age: there being more proper punishments thought fit Same 
for them, such as fatherly rebukes and corporal correction : nors or 
and to inflict the highest censures upon such, was rather eae 
thought a lessening of authority, and bringing contempt upon 
the discipline of the Church. Therefore Socrates '3 observes 
of Arsenius, the Egyptian abbot, ‘that he was never used to 
excommunicate any junior monks, but only those that had 
made a greater proficiency: for a young man, when he is ex- 
communicated, only becomes a despiser.’ Palladius!4 observes 
the same of the discipline of the great church of Mount Nitria, 
that they had three whips hung up in the church, one for 
chastising the offending monks, another for robbers, and a 
third for strangers, that came accidentally and behaved them- 
selyes disorderly among them. So in the Rule of Isidore of 
Seyille!>, one article is, ‘that they who were in their minority 
should not be punished with excommunication, but according 
to the quality of their negligence or offence be corrected with 
congruous stripes.’ The late author of the Historia Flagel- 
lantium® cites the Rule of Macarius?7, and that of St. Bene- 


13 L. 4. c. 23. See before, Ὁ. 7. 
eh. 3. 8.12. v.2. p. 372. n. 78. 

14 Hist. Lausiac. c. 6. See be- 
fore, ibid. n. 81. 

15 Regul. c. 17. (p. 495 b.) In 
minori #tate constituti non sunt 
coercendi sententia excommunica- 
tionis, sed pro qualitate negligentic 
congruis emendandi sunt plagis. 

16 Cc. 5. et 6. (Paris. 1700. pp. 
95» 5644.) 


7 Regul. c. 15. (ap. Hist. Fla- 
gellant. ut supr. p. 145.) Sivero ali- 
quis deprehensus fuerit in risu vel 
in scurrilitate sermonis, sicut ait 
Apostolus, que ad rem non pertinet, 
jubemus hujusmodi duarum hebdo- 
madarum spatio, in nomine Domini 
omni flagello humilitatis coérceri.— 
{The author of the History argues 
against the Flagellants that the 
omni flagello humilitatis is to be un- 


172 The objects of XVI. πὶ 


dict 18, and Aurelian!9, and Gregory the Great2°, to the same 
purpose. And Cyprian, [Gallus, or Tolonensis,| in the Life 
of Cxsarius Arelatensis”!, says, that bishop observed this me- 
thod both with slaves and freemen, ‘ that when they were to 
be scourged for their faults, they should suffer forty stripes 
save one, according as the law appointed.’ The Council of 
Agde* orders the same punishment not only for junior monks, 
but also for the inferior clergy. And the Council of Mascon 23 
particularly insists upon the number of forty stripes save one. 
The Council of Vannes” repeats the canon of Agde. And the 
Council of Epone2?> speaks of stripes as the peculiar punish- 
ment of the minor clergy for the same crimes that were pun- 
ished with excommunication for a whole year in the superior 


derstood in a figurative sense. Ep. ] 
—Conf. ibid. [Reg. Tert. S. Patr. 
n. 13.] Si quis vero monachus fur- 
tum fecerit, quod potius sacrilegium 
dici potest, id censuimus ordinan- 
dum, ut junior virgis czsus, tanti 
criminis reus neutiquam officium 
clericatus excipiat, &c. 

18 Regul. c. 70. (ibid. p. 156.) Ut 
nulli liceat quenquam fratrum ex- 
communicare aut cedere, nisi cui 
potestas ab abbate data fuerit. In- 
fantibus vero usque ad quintum de- 
cimum annum etatis, discipline di- 
ligentia adhibeatur et custodia sit 
omnibus. — {The author contends 
that this rule also was not to be 
taken as literally as the Flagellants 
implied. Ep. | 

19 Regul. c. 41. (ibid. p. 172.) 
Pro qualibet culpa si necesse fuerit 
flagelli accipere disciplinam, nun- 
quam legitimus excedatur numerus, 
id est, triginta novem.—T[ Conf. ibid. 
c.17. Regul. S. Isidor. (p.172.) Si 
pro qualitate negligentie congruis 
emendendi sunt plagis, ut quos z- 
tatis infirmitas a culpa non revocat, 
flagelli disciplina compescat. ‘The 
literal meaning of these words the 
author of the History does not dis- 
pute. Ep. |] 

20. ΤΥ Ὅν dip: 66..(CC. itscn ia 
1478 c.) Quia ergo tante nequitize 
malum sine digna non debet ultione 
transire, supra scriptum ., . Pascha- 
sium episcopum volumus admoneri, 


ut eundem Hilarium prius subdiaco- 
natus, quo indignus fungitur, privet 
officio, atque verberibus publice cas- 
tigatum faciat in exsilium deportari, 
ut unius poena multorum possit 
esse correctio. 

21 C. 11. ap. Hist. Flagellant. 
ibid. p. 103. et ap. Surium, 27. Aug. 
(t. 4. p. 947.) Solebat vir sanctus 
id accurate observare, ut nemo ex 
illis qui ipsi parebant, sive servi ili 
essent sive ingenul, si pro culpa sua 
flagellandi essent, amplius triginta 
novem ictibus ferirentur. 

22 C. 38. (t. 4. p. 1389 d.) Si 
verborum increpatio non emenda- 
verit, etiam verberibus statuimus 
coerceri.—C. 41. (ibid. c.) Quem 
ebrium fuisse constituit, ut ordo pa- 
titur aut triginta dierum spatio a 
communione statuimus submoven- 
dum, aut corporali subdendum sup- 
plicio. 

23 Matiscon. 1.c. 8. (Ὁ. 5. p. 968 d.) 
Si junior fuerit, uno minus de qua- 
draginta ictus accipiat. 

24 C. 6. (t. 4. p. 1055 d.) In mo- 
nachis quoque par sententize forma 
servetur, quos si verborum incre- 
patio, &c. 

25 C. 15. (ibid. p. 1578 a.) Si su- 
perioris loci clericus hzretici cujus- 
cunque clerici convivio interfuerit, 
anni spatio pacem ecclesiz non ha- 
bebit. Quod juniores clerici si pre- 
sumpserint, vapulabunt. 


) 11, 12. ecclesiastical censures. 179 


clergy. Nor is this to be wondered at in these Councils, since 
St. Austin? assures us, this kind of punishment by stripes was 
commonly used, not only by schoolmasters and parents, but by 
bishops in their consistories also. And the plain reason of all 
this seems to be, not so much the distinction of crimes, as the 
distinction of age and quality in the persons. 

12. Another inquiry may be made concerning persons de- How per- 
ceased,— Whether ever any excommunication was inflicted on eats 


sometimes 
men aiter death, if they died in the peace and communion of ¢xcommu- 


the Church? It has already been observed?’, that when men pages 
died impenitent under the bonds of excommunication unre- 
laxed, a necessary consequence of that was the denying them 
Christian burial, and all future memorial in the prayers and 
oblations of the Church, by striking their names out of the 
diptychs or holy books, which kept the memorial of such as 
died in the peace and communion of the Church. But the 
question here is not about those that died so excommunicate, 
but those that died in the visible communion and external 
peace of the Church, and under no ecclesiastical censure, whe- 
ther upon any new discovery of their errors or crimes after 
death, they were liable to be excommunicated, and after what 
manner that censure was passed upon them ? 

Now the resolution of this question in part will easily be 
given from a famous case in Cyprian concerning one Geminius 
Victor, who, contrary to the rule of a Council, had made Ge- 
minius Faustinus a guardian or trustee by his last will and 
testament ; for which transgression, Cyprian?%, after his death, 
wrote to the Church of Furni, where he had lived, to put the 
sentence of the Council in execution against him; telling them, 
‘that since Victor had presumed, against the rule made in 


*6 Ep. 159. [8]. 133.] ad Marcel- 265. append.] (t. 5. append. p. 


lin. (t. 2. p. 396 6.) Noli perdere 
paternam diligentiam, quam in ipsa 
inquisitione servasti, quando tanto- 
rum scelerum confessionem, non 
extendente eculeo, non sulcantibus 
ungulis, non urentibus flammis, sed 
virgarum verberibus eruisti. Qui 
modus coercitionis et a magistris 
artium liberalium, et ab ipsis pa- 
rentibus, et sepe etiam in judiciis 
solet ab episcopis adhiberi.— Conf. 
Serm. 215. de Temp. [al. Serm. 


438 b.) Si vero ad vos pertinent, 
etiam flagellis ety: p> 

47 Ch. 2.:8. 11. 

283 Ep. 66. [al. ἘΝ a Cler. Fur- 
nitan. p. 3. (p. 170.) Ideo Victor, 
cum contra formam nuper in con- 
cilio a sacerdotibus datam, Gemi- 
nium Faustinum presbyterum au- 
sus sit tutorem constituere, non est 
δὲν pro dormitione ejus apud vos 
at oblatio aut deprecatio aliqua no- 
mine ejus in ecclesia frequentetur. 


174 The objects of XVI. ini 


Council, to appoint Geminius Faustinus, one of the presbyters 
of the Church, his trustee, for this offence no oblation ought 
be made for his death, nor any prayer to be offered in his 
name in the Church, according to the custom of praying then 
for all that were departed in the faith.” This was a plain ex- 
communication of him after death, by erasing his name out of 
the diptychs of the Church. Such another decree we find in 
the African Code29 against any bishop that should make he- 
retics or Heathens his heirs, whether they were of his own kin- 
dred or not: ‘ Let such an one be anathematized after death, 
and let not his name be written or recited among the priests of 
God.’ With this agrees what St. Austin says more than once®° 
concerning Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, ‘that if the things 
which the Donatists objected against him were true, and they 
could evidently prove them, the Catholics were ready to ana- 
thematize him after death.’ And there want not in fact several 
instances of this practice. For thus Origen, as Socrates* says, 
was excommunicated two hundred years after his death by 
Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. And Theodorus of Mopsu- 
estia was so anathematized by the fifth general Council, as ap- 
pears from Evagrius®?, and the Letters of Justinian*?, and the 
Acts of the Council. In like manner the sixth general Coun- 
cil34 anathematized Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, after 


29 Ὁ. 82. [al. 81.] (t. 2. p. 1098 b.) 
Mera θάνατον ἀνάθεμα τοιούτῳ λεχ- 
θείῃ, K.T.X. 

50 Ep. 1. p. 8o. [al. 185. Ὁ; 1.] 
ad Bonifac. (t. 2. p. 644 d.)....Si 
vera essent, que ab eis objecta sunt 
Ceciliano, et nobis possent aliquan- 
do monstrari, ipsum jam mortuum 
anathematizaremus.— Ep. 152. [al. 
141.] Que est Epistola Synodica 
Concilii Cirtensis [4]. Zertensis] ad 
Donatistas. (t. 2. p. 458 d.).... Si 
forte malus esset inventus, ipsum 
anathematizaremus. 

31 L. 7. c. 48.-(v.'2..p.'393. 30.) 
Θαυμάσαι δέ μοι ἔπεισι, πῶς ὁ POd- 
νος ᾿Ωριγένους μὲν τελευτήσαντος ἥ- 
aro, ᾿Ιωάννου δὲ ἐφείσατο ὁ μὲν 
γὰρ μετὰ διακόσια ἔτη ποῦ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ 
τελευτῆς ὑπὸ Θεοφίλου ἀκοινώνητος 
γέγονεν" ᾿Ιωάννης δὲ τριακοστῷ πέμ- 
πτῳ ἔτει μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν εἰς κοινω- 
νίαν ὑπὸ Πρόκλου ἐδέχθη. 

82. 7... 4. c. 38. (v. 3. p. 419. 17.) 


See before, ch. 2. s. 11. p. 100. n. 13. 

33 Ep. in Act. 1. C. 5. Gen. (CC. 
t. 5. p. 423 c.) Ex his etenim omni- 
bus cognoscetis, quod ab illo tem- 
pore condemnatus est tam ipse 
| Theodorus], quam blasphemiz ejus 
a sanctis patribus; et quod propter 
istas superioribus temporibus dele- 
tum est et nomen ejus a sacris 
diptychis ecclesiz, cujus fuit epi- 
scopus. Hortamur autem [vos] 
etiam illud disceptare, quod vane 
profertur ab eis, qui dicunt, non 
oportere post mortem heereticos 
anathematizari; et sequi in hoc doc- 
trinam sanctorum patrum, qui non 
solum viventes hereticos condem- 
naverunt, sed et post mortem, ut- 
pote in sua impietate mortuos ana- 
thematizaverunt, sicut eos, qui in- 
juste condemnati sunt, revocaverunt 
post mortem, et in sacris diptychis 
scripserunt, 


. 12, 13. ecclesiastical censures. 175 


death, together with Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, and Theo- 
dorus, bishop of Pharan, and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Petrus, and 
Paulus, bishops of Constantinople, all whose names were erased 
out of the sacred diptychs after death by the order of that 
Council. 

It is a grand dispute indeed among the gentlemen of the 
Church of Rome, whether the name of their Pope Honorius 
ought to stand in that black list? Baronius®® affirming, that 
the Acts of the Council, where his name is inserted, are cor- 
rupted : and Combefis®®, on the other hand, writing a whole 
volume against Baronius to prove them genuine. But however 
that matter be. there is no dispute about all the rest ; but that 
they were certainly anathematized by that Council after death, 
Sometimes men were unjustly excommunicated either living or 
dead: and then the way to restore them to the communion of 
the Church was to insert their names into the diptychs, whence 
they had been expunged before. Thus Theodoret?7 says 
Atticus restored the name of Chrysostom. after it had for 
many years been left out. And John, bishop of Constanti- 
nople, in a synod, anno 518, restored®* the names of Pope 
Leo, and Euphemius, and Macedonius, and the Council of 
Chalcedon, which by the fraud of Anastasius, the emperor, 
who was an Eutychian heretic, had all been cast out of the 
diptychs of the Church. This was the method both of con- 
demning and restoring men to the communion of the Church 
after death. To deny them Christian burial, or not to receive 
their oblations, or to erase their names out of the diptychs, 
was the same thing as to declare them anathematized and cast 
out of the communion of the faithful, with whom the Church 
maintained communion after death. 

And so far we have considered the persons that might or 
might not be the subjects of ecclesiastical censures, whether 
living or dead. 

13. The next inquiry is concerning the crimes for which The cen- 


Z + ae sures of the 
these censures might be inflicted. And here the canons are Gh int 


34 Act. 13. (t. 6. pp. i se Οὗτος τὴν ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ πάνυ προση- 

55 An. ύϑο. n. 34. [Δ]. n. ane (t. γορίαν πρῶτος τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς 
8. p. 539 6.) Sed vel hac ex parte, ἕο. διπτύχοις ἐνέταξε. 

ἰῷ Hist. Monothelit. {nempe, 38 Vid. Act. C. Constant. sub 
Auctarium Novum, t.2.] Paris.1648. Menna, Act. 5. (t.5. p.164¢. p. 165 

7 L. 5. c. 35. (v. 3. p. 235... 38-) b,c, d. p.172 b, c.) 


176 The crimes for which XVLa@ 


tobein- wont to make a very exact and nice distinction i general be- 
on tween the greater and lesser sins, the former only being such 
fences, 


as were regarded in the business of excommunication: for 
this being the severest of all punishments was not to be in- 
flicted for every trifle. ‘Therefore bishops,’ says the Council 
of Agde3’, ‘must have a great regard to sacerdotal modera- 
tion, and not presume to excommunicate either the innocent or 
those that are guilty only of small offences. Otherwise they 
are liable to be admonished by the neighbouring bishops of 
the province; and if they obey not, the bishops of the province 
are to refuse them their communion till the next synod.’ 
Some copies®9 read it, ‘They shall not be denied communion 
till the next synod: and then it refers to the persons excom- 
municated, that though they were rashly cast out of the 
Church for slight causes by their own bishops, the rest of the 
bishops should not deny them communion till their cause was 
heard in a synod. The fifth Council of Orleans*° has a like 


38 C.3.(t.4. p. 1383.) Episcopi, si, 
sacerdotali moderatione postposita, 
innocentes, aut minimis causis cul- 
pabiles, excommunicare preesumpse- 
rint,...a vicinis episcopis cujusli- 
bet provinciz literis moneantur. Et, 
si parere noluerint, communio illis 
usque ad tempus synodi a reliquis 
episcopis denegetur [al. non denege- 
tur ].—See Gratian, caus. 11. quest. 
8. c. 8. (Ὁ. τ. p. 923. 68.) where this 
canon is cited, and what the Roman 
Correctors observe of this various 
reading. [They say (ibid. 6.) on 
the reading denegetur, which they 
approve, Sic habent Ivo et Pannor- 
mia et antiquiores Conciliorum edi- 
tiones, et duo Vaticana exemplaria : 
videturque huic simile quod legitur 
supra, 0. q.2 ¢. fi. ; sed in recentio- 
ribus editionibus est non denege- 
tur. Conf. caus. 6. quest. 2. 6. 3. 
(ibid. p. 808. 15.) Placuit ut, si 
quando episcopus dicit aliquem sibi 
soli proprium crimen confessum, at- 
que ille neget, non putet ad inju- 
rlam suam episcopus pertinere, quod 
ili non creditur. Et si scrupulo 
propriz conscientiz se dicit neganti 
nolle communicare, quamdiu excom- 
municato non communicaverit suus 
episcopus, eidem episcopo non com- 


municetur episcopis, ut magis caveat 
episcopus ne dicat in quempiam, 
quod aliis documentis convincere 
non potest. Ep. 

39 [See Crabbe’s Edition, (t. 1. 
p- 615.) where the canon in question 
reads thus: Episcopi vero, si, sacer- 
dotali moderatione postposita, in- 
nocentes aut minimis causis culpa- 
biles excommunicare preesumpserint, 
aut ad gratiam festinantes recipere 
fortasse noluerint, a vicinis episcopis 
cujuslibet provinciz literis monean- 
tur. Et, si parere noluerint, com- 
munio illis (viz. the innocentes, δ. 
as above,) usque ad tempus synodi 
a reliquis episcopis non denegetur : 
ne forte, propter excommunicatoris 
peccatum, excommunicati longotem- 
pore morte preveniantur.—This last 
clause is exegetical of the non denege- 
tur communio, and makes it plain, 
that in such cases the Church in- 
clined to the side of charity, and did 
not exclude such persons, when thus 
harshly treated by their own bishop, 
from the comfort of communion, at 
all events till the next synod should 
decide their point. a | 

40 C.2. (t.5. p-391 6.) Nullus 
sacerdotum quenquam recte fidei 
hominem pro parvis et levibus causis 


} 13, 14. censures were inflicted. 177 


order, ‘That no bishop shall suspend any of the faithful 
from the communion for little and slight causes, but only 
for those crimes, for which the ancient Fathers command 
offenders to be cast out of the Church.’ And this is repeated 
in the Council of Arvern or Clermont+!, held about the same 
time, anno 549. 

14. But it may be asked, What the ancient Fathers meant what the 
by slight causes and small offences in this business of eccle- Spence 
siastical censure? And how they distinguished these from seal od 
those greater crimes, which made men liable to excommunica- er it 
tion and public penance in the Church? The right under- and how : 
standing of these things will be of great use, not only to give eee 
us a clear view of the nature of ecclesiastical discipline, but also them from 
to show the vanity of a late distinction between mortal and ee 
yenial sin, as used by the Romanists, to bring all sins that 
are mortal under the necessity of auricular confession and 
private absolution. Now it is certain the Ancients did not be- 
lieve any sins to be venial, as that signifies needing no pardon, 
but, in that sense, all sins to be mortal in their own nature, and 
such as we have need to ask pardon for at the hands of God. 

But because there are some sins of human frailty and imad- 
vertency in the best of men, and sins of daily incursion, without 
which no man lives; these they usually call venial sins, as 
needing no other repentance but a general confession; nor 
any other pardon but what is daily granted by God to good 
men upon their daily prayers and acknowledgment of their 
offences. Besides these, there are other sins of wilfulness, and 
of a more malignant nature, which if continued in without a 
particular repentance and reformation will prove mortal, and 
exclude men from the kingdom of heaven: and yet many of 
these were such as did not ordinarily bring men under the 
highest censures of the Church, but were to be cured only by 
general reproofs and exhortations to repentance. These also 
in like manner, with respect to the severity of Church-disci- 
pline which did not reach them, were sometimes termed lesser 
and venial sins, in opposition to those yet more heinous sins, 
which brought men under excommunication and public penance 


a communione suspendat: preter tentes. 
i eas culpas, pro quibus antiqui patres 41 Avernens. 2. 6. 2. (ibid. p. 402 
arceri ab ecclesia jusserunt commit- b.) Ut nullus sacerdos, &c. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. N 





178 The crimes for which XVL. ii 


to make expiation and atonement for them. These sins were 
mortal in their own nature, and fatal in the effect to the sinner: 
but yet the Church for many reasons was obliged sometimes 
to let them pass, without any other censure than a pastoral ad- 
monition. But there was a third sort of sins both of a malig- 
nant, and public, and flagrant nature, of which sinners might 
easily be impleaded and convicted: and these were those great 
sins, as they are usually termed in opposition to both the fore- 
mentioned kinds, on which the highest severities of Church- 
discipline were exercised, unless where the multitude of sinners, 
or their abettors, or the danger of schism, as has been noted 
before 41, made the thing impracticable and unfeasible. 

This threefold distinction of sins is accurately noted by 
St. Austin in his Book of Faith and Works4?: he says, ‘ there 
are some sins so great as to deserve to be punished with ex- 
communication, according to that of the Apostle, “To deliver 
such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” [1 Cor. 5, 5.] 
Again, there are other sins which are not to be cured by 
that humiliation of penance, which is imposed upon those who 
are properly called penitents in the Church, but by certain 
medicines of reproof, according to that of our Lord, “ Tell him 
of his fault between him and thee alone; if he hear thee, thou 
hast gained thy brother.” [Matth. 18, 15.] Lastly, there are 
other sins for which he had left us a daily cure in that prayer, 
wherein he hath taught us to say, “ Forgive us our trespasses, 
as we forgive them that trespass against us.”’ By this it is 
plain that all great and deadly sins did not bring men under 
the public censure of excommunication, but only those of the 
first kind, which were of the highest nature. 

In other places he distinguishes sins only into two kinds, 
greater and lesser ; sins that obliged men to do public penance, 


41 Sees. 6, of this chapter, p. 146. 

42 C. 26. (t.6. p. 191 c.) Sed nisi 
essent queedam ita gravia, ut etiam 
excomimunicatione plectenda sint, 
non diceret Apostolus: Congregatis 
vobis et meo spiritu, tradere ejusmodi 
hominem Satane, §c. Item nisi es- 
sent quedam non ea humilitate pe- 
nitentiz sananda, qualis in ecclesia 
datur eis, qui proprie peenitentes vo- 


cantur, sed quibusdam correptiti- 
onum medicamentis, non diceret ipse 
Dominus, Corripe inter te et ipsum 
solum, §c. Postremo, nisi essent 
quedam, sine quibus hee vita non 
agitur, non quotidianam medelam 
poneret in oratione quam docuit, ut 
dicamus, Dimitte nobis debita no- 
stra, sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus 
nostris. 


Lend 


censures were inflicted. 179 


and sins that were pardoned by daily prayer, weeping, fasting, 
giving and forgiving, without any obligation to do public 
penance for them. The former he calls mortal sins, and the 
other venial; not because they were not mortal in their own 
nature, but because they were pardoned without the solemnity 
of a public repentance. So many great sins, such as anger, 
and evil thoughts, and evil speaking, and excess in the use of 
lawful things, are reckoned by him in the number of lesser 
sins, in comparison of such great and deadly sins, as murder 
and theft and adultery. ‘He that is free,’ says he “8, ‘ from 
great and mortal sins, such as the crimes of murder, theft, and 
adultery, yet being liable to many lesser sins of the tongue and 
thoughts, and immoderate use of lawful things, he thereupon 
exercises himself in making true confession of them, and comes 


to the light by performing good works; because a multitude 


of lesser sins, if they be neglected, kill the soul. Many small 
drops fill a river: a grain of sand is but a small thing, but 
many grains added together will load and oppress us. The 
pump of a ship, if it be neglected, will do the same thing as a 
boisterous wave. It enters by little and little at the pump, but 
by long entering, and never draining, at last it sinks the ship. 
And what is it to drain the soul, but by good works, such as 
mourning, and fasting, and giving and forgiving, to take care 
that such sins do not overwhelm the soul?’ The lesser sins he 
here speaks of were not only sins of inadvertency and common 
human frailty, but sins of an higher nature: and yet he calls 
them J/ittle sins, in comparison of those great and deadly sins 
of adultery and murder, for which men underwent public 
penance, which they did not for these other sins, which yet 
would prove fatal, unless men took care, by confession and 
godly sorrow and fasting, and almsdeeds, and charity to their 
enemies, to clear themselves of them. 


43 Tractat. 12. in Ioan. p. 47. (t. 3. 
part. 2. p. 390 c.) Liberatus ab illis 
lethalibus et grandibus peccatis, qua- 
la sunt facinora, homicidia, furta, 
adulteria, propter illa, que minuta 
videntur esse, peccata lingue, cogi- 
tationum, aut immoderationis in re- 
bus concessis, facit veritatem con- 
fessionis, et venit ad lucem in operi- 
bus bonis: quoniam minuta plura 
peccata, si negligantur, occidunt. 


Minute sunt gutte, que flumina 
implent, minuta sunt grana arene: 
sed si multa arena imponetur, pre- 
mit atque opprimit. Hoc facit sen- 
tina neglecta, quod facit fluctus ir- 
ruens : paulatim per sentinam intrat, 
sed diu intrando et non exhaurien- 
do mergit navim. Quid est autem 
exhaurire, nisi bonis operibus agere 
ne obruant peccata, gemendo, jeju- 
nando, tribuendo, ignoscendo. 


N 2 


180 The crimes for which XVI. iti 


In another place 44 he speaks of two sorts of repentance for 
two sorts of sins committed after baptism, which he thus dis- 
tinguishes: ‘There is one sort of repentance which is to be 
performed every day. And whence can we show that? I can- 
not better show it than from the daily prayer, where our Lord 
hath taught us to pray, and shown us what we are to say unto 
the Father, in these words, “ Forgive us our trespasses, as we 
forgive them that trespass against us.” There is another more 
weighty and mournful sort of repentance, from which men are 
properly called penitents in the Church; by which they are 
sequestered from partaking of the sacrament of the altar, lest 
they should eat and drink damnation to themselves. This is a 
grievous repentance, the wound is very grievous, perhaps adul- 
tery, or murder, or sacrilege has been committed. This is a 
grievous thing, a grieyous wound, mortal and deadly, but the 
physician is almighty.’ Here again is a plain distinction be- 
tween such great sins as adultery, sacrilege, and murder, for 
which men were to do a long and public penance in the 
Church; and such sins of a lower rank, as were to be done 
away by daily prayer and daily repentance, which was the 
remedy for all sins, great and small, that were not of the 
highest nature. Upon this account he calls public penance by 
the name of penitentia major, the greater repentance, for 
great and deadly sins, in opposition to the lesser or daily re- 
pentance for sins of a lower nature, which he terms venial sins, 
because they were more easily pardoned by that ordinary and 
daily repentance. Thus in his Instructions to the Catechu- 
mens 45, directing them how to lead their lives after baptism, 


44 Hom. 27. ex 50. t. 10. p. 177. 
[al. Serm. 352. c. 2.](t.5. p. 1369 d.) 
Est alia quippe [scil. pcenitentia] 
quotidiana. Et ubi illam ostendi- 
mus peenitentiam quotidianam? Non 
habeo ubi melius ostendam, quam 
in oratione quotidiana, ubi Dominus 
orare nos docuit, &c.—Ibid. c. 3. 
(p. 1370 f, g.) Est poenitentia gra- 
vior atque luctuosior, in qua pruprie 
vocantur in ecclesia poenitentes: re- 
moti etiam a sacramento altaris par- 
ticipandi, ne accipiendo indigne ju- 
dicium sibi manducent et bibant. 
Illa ergo pcenitentia luctuosa est. 
Grave vulnus est: adulterium forte 


commissum est, forte homicidium, 
forte sacrilegium. Gravis res, grave 
vulnus, lethale, mortiferum, sed om- 
nipotens medicus, &c. [Conf. Hom. 
50. ibid. c. 3. n. 6. et c. 4. n. 7. pp. 
1355» 1356. al. Serm. 351. 6. 3. n. 5. 
(t..6.\p. 1355 e.) Quze quamvis sin- 
gula, : while c. 4. n. 7. ibid. (p. 
1356 e. ) speaks of the fertia peni- 
tentia severior pro peccatis mortife- 
ris. Ep. 

45 De Aa ad Catechumenos, 
1. 1. c. 7. t. 9. (t. 6. p. 554 g-) Non 
vobis dico, quia sine peccato hie vi- 
vetis : sed sunt venialia, sine quibus 
vita ista non est. Propter omnia 


§ 14. 


would have been sufficient to blot them out. 


censures were inflicted. 181 


he tells them, ‘ He did not prescribe them an impossible rule, 
to live here altogether free from sin: for there were some 
lesser or more pardonable sins, without which this life is not 
passed by any. Baptism was appointed for the remission of 
all sins, of what kind soever: but for lesser sins prayer was 
appointed. And what says the prayer? “Forgive us our tres- 
passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” We are 
once washed, or cleansed from sin by baptism, we are daily 
cleansed by prayer. Only do not commit such things, for 
which it will be necessary to separate you from the body of 
Christ, which God forbid. For they, whom you see doing 
penance, have committed great crimes, either adultery or some 
such heinous wickedness, upon account of which they are doing 
penance. For if they had been light sins, the daily prayer 
Therefore there 
are three ways by which sins are forgiven in the Church; by 
baptism, by prayer, and by the humiliation of the greater re- 
pentance.’ Where by the greater repentance it is evident he 
means the public penance done in the Church for crimes only of 
the highest nature : and therefore the lesser repentance, accom- 
panying men’s daily prayers, was sufficient to blot out both 
lesser sins of daily incursion, and also greater sins, for which 


peccata baptismus inventus est : 
propter levia, sine quibus esse non 
possumus, oratio inventa. Quid ha- 
bet oratio? Dimitte nobis debita 
nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debi- 
toribus nostris. Semel abluimur 
baptismate, quotidie abluimur ora- 
tione. 
pro quibus necesse est ut a Christi 
corpore separemini; quod absit a 
vobis. Illi enim, quos videtis agere 
peenitentiam, scelera commiserunt, 
aut adulteria, aut aliqua facta im- 
mania: inde agunt pcenitentiam. 
Nam si levia peccata ipsorum es- 
sent, ad hze quotidiana oratio de- 
lenda sufficeret. Ergo tribus modis 
dimittuntur peccata in ecclesia, in 
baptismate, in oratione, in humili- 
tate majore {sic MSS., editi vero 
majoris| peenitentie. [Conf. Hom. 
11g. de Temp. c. 8. | al. Serm. 213. ] 
(t. 5. p. 942 d, e.) Si, quoniam vic- 
turi sumus in isto seculo, ubi quis 
non vivit sine peccato, ideo remissio 
peccatorum non est in sola ablu- 


Sed nolite illa committere, ἡ 


tione sacri baptismatis, sed etiam in 
oratione Dominica ‘et quotidiana, &c. 
—Ep. 89. quest. 1. [al. 157. 6. 1.] 
ad Hilar. (t. 2. p. 543 d,e.).... Qui 
misericordia Dei adjutus et gratia 
se ab eis peccatis abstinuerit, que 
etiam crimina vocantur, atque illa 
peccata, sine quibus non hic vivitur, 
mundare operibus misericordia et 
piis orationibus non neglexerit, &c. 
Quisquis autem ....dederit se libi- 
dinibus, et criminibus nefariis obli- 
gaverit,.... quaslibet inter hec elee- 
mosynas faciat, et infeliciter ducit 
vitam, et infelicius finit—Ep. 108. 
fal. 265.] ad Seleucian. (ibid. p. 898 
6,1.) Est etiam peenitentia bonorum 
et humilium fidelium pene quotidi- 
ana in qua pectora tundimus, di- 
centes, Dimitte nobis, ὅς. Neque 
enim ea nobis dimitte volumus, que 
dimissa non dubitamus in baptis- 
mo; sed illa utique que humane 
fragilitate, quamvis parva, tamen 
crebra subrepunt, &c. Ep. ] 


182 XVL. iii. 


The crimes for which 


no public penance was required, but only the sincere reforma- 
tion of the sinner, producing good works, and especially works 
of charity and mercy. Thus in his Enchiridion+®: ‘ For daily, 
short and light sins, without which no man lives, the daily 
prayer of the faithful is sufficient. This prayer blots out all 
little and daily sins. It blots out also those sins with which 
the life of the faithful is more egregiously defiled, provided 
they change it into better by true repentance; if they say 
truly, with actions corresponding to their words, “ Forgive us 
our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us!”’ 
He often distinguishes 47 between peccatum and crimen, 
making the first to be such sins as are forgiven by daily prayer 
and daily repentance; and the second such flagrant crimes as 
murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and such 
like, for which men were obliged to undergo public penance in 
the Church. And he understands the same things when he so 
often distinguishes 48 between greater and lesser sins, mortal 
sins and venial sins; prescribing public repentance for the one, 
and private repentance for the other. By all which it is mani- 
fest, that neither sins of human frailty and daily incursion, to 
which the best of men are liable, nor many sins of a more 


46 Enchirid. c. 71. (t.6. p. 223 b.) 
De quotidianis, brevibus, levibusque 
peccatis, sine quibus hee vita non 
ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium 
satisfacit. ... Delet omnino hee ora- 
tio minima et quotidiana peccata. 
Delet et illa, a quibus vita fidelium 
scelerate etiam gesta, sed pceniten- 


do in melius mutata discedit: si, ° 


quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, Di- 
mitte nobis debita nostra, quoniam 
non desunt, que dimittuntur, ita 
veraciter dicatur, Sicut et nos dimit- 
timus debitoribus nostris. 

47 Hom. 41. ex 50. [al. Serm. 
405. (t. 5. p. 1507 b.).... Homo 


baptizatus, si vitam, non audeo di- 


cere sine peccato, quis enim sine - 


peccato? Sed vitam sine crimine 
duxerit, et alia habet peccata, quae 
quotidie dimittuntur in oratione di- 
centi, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, 
§c. Quando diem finierit, vitam 
non finit sed transit de vita in vi- 
tam, &c.—Tractat. 41. in Ioan. t. 9. 
Ρ. 126. (t. 3. part. 2. p.575 a.) Ideo 
et Apostolus Paulus quando elegit 


ordinandos....non ait, Si quis sine 
peccato est: hoc enim si diceret, 
omnis homo reprobaretur, nullus 
ordinaretur; sed ait, Si quis sine 
crimine est, sicut est homicidium, 
adulterium, aliqua immunditia forni- 
cationis, furtum, fraus, sacrilegium, 
et cetera hujusmodi.—He says a 
little before, (ibid. p.574f.) Crimen 
est peccatum grave, accusatione et 
damnatione dignissimum.—De Ci- 
vitat. Dei, 1. 21. c. 27. (t. 7. p. 652 
b.).....Non putare nos esse sine 
peccatis, etiamsi a criminibus esse- 
mus immunes. 

48 Tractat. 26. in Ioan. p. 93. (t. 3. 
part. 2. p. 498 d.) Peccata etsi sunt 
quotidiana, vel non sint mortifera. 
Ante quam ad altare accedatis at- 
tendite, quid dicatis; Dimitte no- 
bis, §:c.—De Symbol. ad Catechum. 
1.1. 6.7. See before, n. 45, preced- 
ing.—Cont. Julian. Pelagian. 1. 2. 
c. το. (t. το. p.548 a.) Etsi non le- 
taliter, sed venialiter, tamen vinci- 
mur, &c. 





censures were inflicted. 183 


malignant nature, as many evil words, and evil thoughts, and 
excesses in the use of lawful things, and hasty anger and fre- 
quent going to law for trifles, were reckoned into the number 
of those flagrant crimes for which the severities of Church- 
discipline were inflicted upon delinquents; but all such sins, 
being of an inferior nature, or not so easy to be proved upon 
men, were only matters of reproof, and left to their own con- 
sciences to cure, either by daily prayer, or private repentance 
and reformation. And that this was so from the beginning ap- 
pears from what the learned Du Pin 49 has discoursed upon this 
matter against Mr. Arnaud and others of his own communion. 
He observes, that all the Ancients made this very distinction, 
between great and little sins, and reckoned only very capital 
and mortal crimes in the number of such sins, as were to be 
punished with excommunication. 

Tertullian, even when he disputes against the Church upon 
the point of absolution and readmission of excommunicated 
sinners into the Church again, owns notwithstanding, that 
there were many sins which did not bring men under the 
censure of excommunication, because they were sins of daily 
incursion, to which all men were more or less exposed. 
Among these he °° reckons anger, when it is unjust, either in 
its cause, or duration, when the sun goes down upon our wrath; 
and also quarrelling and eyil-speaking, a rash or vain oath, a 
failure in our promise, a lie extorted by modesty or necessity, 
and many such temptations which befall men in their business 
and offices, in gain, in eating, in seeing, and hearing. On the 
contrary, there are some more grievous and deadly sins, which 
are incapable of pardon, (according to his rigid principles of 


Cui enim non acci- 


49 Bibliothéque, cent. 4. p. 218. (t. 
2. p. 275. S. Ambroise.) [lest bon de 
faire remarquer en passant, comment 
les Péres entendent cette distinction 
de grands et de petits péchés. Ter- 
tullien, qui est le premier, qui en 

le clairement dans son livre de la 
udicité, met au nombre des petits 
péchés la colére, la médisance, une 
serment inutile, un manque de pa- 
role, un mensonage fait par honte 
ou par nécessité, &c. 

® De Pudicit. c. το. (p. 582 b.) 
... + Quod sint queedam delicta quo- 
tidiane incursionis, quibus omnes 


simus objecti. 
dit aut irasci inique, et ultra solis 
occasum, aut et manum immittere, 
aut facile maledicere, aut temere 
jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, 
aut verecundia aut necessitate men- 
tiri; iu negotiis, in officiis, in queestu, 
in victu, in visu, in auditu quanta 
tentamur....Sunt autem et con- 
traria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa, 
- veniam non capiant, homici- 
ium, idololatria,fraus, negatio, blas- 
phemia, utique et meechia, et forni- 
ee et si qua alia violatio templi 
ei. 


184 


The crimes for which XVI. iii. 


Montanism,) such as murder, idolatry, fraud, apostasy, blas- 
phemy, adultery, and fornication, and other such defilements 
of the temple of God. In his Book against Marcion 5! he 
precisely reckons up seven sins, which he distinguishes by the 
names of capital crimes, idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, 
fornication, false-witness, and fraud. 

The Roman Clergy observe the same distinction between 
greater and lesser sins, when they, in their Epistle to Cyprian 53, 
style idolatry the great sin, and the grand sin above all others. 
And Cyprian®? himself calls the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost summum delictum, the highest of all crimes, which has 
never forgiveness, but makes a man guilty of eternal sin: that is, 
a sin that was to be punished in both worlds without repentance. 
Which is the notion that most of the Ancients had of the sin 
against the Holy Ghost, (to note this by the way,) not that it 
was absolutely unpardonable 55, but that men were to be 
punished for it, both in this world and the next, unless they truly 
repented of it. Again, when speaking of idolatry in those that 
lapsed in persecution 55, Cyprian distinguishes it by the title of 
‘the most heinous and extreme offence. And speaking also of 
adultery, fraud, and murder, he °® calls them mortal sins, by 
way of distinction from those of a lower kind. 

So Origen 57 calls some great and mortal sins, such as blas- 
phemy, for which the Church very rarely allowed men to do pe- 
nance above once: ‘but there are other common sins of daily incur- 
sion, such as evil words, and other corruptions of good manners, 


51 L. 4. c. 9. (p. 419 d.).... Sep- 
tem maculis capitalium delictorum 
inhorrerent idololatria, blasphemia, 
homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso 
testimonio, fraude. 

52 Ap. Cypr. Ep. 26. [al. 31.] p. 
63. (p. 214.)....Grande delictum. 
Ingens et supra omnia peccatum. 

53 Ep. to. [al. 16.] p. 36. (p. 195.) 
Summum enim delictum esse quod 
persecutio committi coegit, sciunt 
ipsi etiam qui commiserunt, cum 
dixerit Dominus, Qui autem Oblas- 
phemaverit Spiritum Sanctum, non 
habebit remissam, sed reus est eter- 
ni peccati. 

94. See afterwards, ch. 7. s. 3. 

55 Ep. 11. [al. 15.] ad Martyr. p. 
34. (Ρ. 193-).... Ante actam peeni- 
tentiam, ante exomologesin gravis- 


simi atque extremi delicti factam, 
&c. 

56 De Patient. p. 216. (p. 148.) 
Adulterium, fraus, homicidium mor- 
tale crimen est. 

57 Hom. 15. in Lev. t. 1. p. 174. 
(t. 2. p. 262 b.) Si nos aliqua culpa 
mortalis invenerit, que non in cri- 
mine mortali, non in blasphemia 
fidei,....sed vel in sermonibus, 
vel in morum vitio, hu- 
juscemodi culpa semper reparari 
potest....In gravioribus enim cri- 
minibus [al. culpis] semel tantum 
vel raro peenitentiz conceditur lo- 
cus: ista vero communia, que fre- 
quenter incurrimus, semper peeni- 
tentiam recipiunt, et sine intermis- 
sione redimuntur. 


seen ae 


censures were inflicted. 185 


which admit of frequent repentance, and are redeemed continually 
without intermission.’ Where he plainly shows, that the re- 
pentance which the Church allowed but once for great sins, 
means public penance in the Church: but lesser and common 
offences were atoned for another way, and as often as they 
were committed, by a daily repentance. In another place 58 
he reckons up lesser sins, to which all are more or less subject, 
such as detraction and mutual defamation of one another, self- 
conceit, banquetting, lying, idle words, and such other light 
faults as are frequently found in men, who have made a good 
proficiency in the Church. These therefore could not be the 
sins which ordinarily subjected men to excommunication, un- 
less we could suppose all men liable to so severe a censure. 
But there were other crimes, which he calls great sins, and 
sins unto death; such as adultery, murder, effeminacy, and 
defilement with mankind. which whoever committed, he was to 
be treated as an Heathen man or a publican. 

St. Ambrose °? makes the same distinction of sins : ‘ As there 
is but one baptism, so there is but one public penance; for we 
are to do penance for the sins we commit every day: but this 
last penance is for small sins, and the former for great ones.’ 
And so Prosper, or Julianus Pomerius under his name ®, says, 
‘There are some sins so small, that we cannot perfectly avoid 
them, and for the expiation of these we cry daily to God, and 
say, “ Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that tres- 
pass against us:” but there are other sins which ought more 
carefully to be avoided, because when men are publicly con- 


*8 Tractat. 6. [8]. tom. 13. n. 30.} 
in Matth. p.60. [juxt. Vet. Inter- 
pret.]...Nec enim existimo cito ali- 
quem inyeniri in ecclesia, qui non 
jam ter in eadem culpa argutus sit, 
ut puta in detractione, qua invicem 


4. fol. 14. vers. 6. Ep. ] 

59 De Peenitent. 1. 2. c. 10. (t. 2. 
Ρ. 436. ἃ. n. 95.)....Sicut unum 
baptisma, ita una peenitentia, que 
tamen publice agitur. Nam quo- 
tidiani nos debet peenitere peccati: 


homines detrahunt proximis suis, 
aut inflatione, aut in epulatione, aut 
in verbo mendacii vel otioso, aut in 
tali aliqua culpa, leyi, que etiam in 
illis, qui videntur proficere in eccle- 
sia, frequenter inveniuntur. [The 
Benedictine (t. 3. p. 611 b) differs 
in terms, but the sense is the same. 
I leave the citation as given by the 
Author according to the Old Ver- 
sion. See Ed. Ascensian. 1522. t. 


sed hee delictorum leviorum, in 
illa graviorum. 

60 De Vit. Contemplat. 1. 2. c. 7. 
(append. p. 31. ἢ. 41.) Exceptis 
enim peccatis, que tam parva sunt 
ut caveri non possint, pro quibus 
expiandis quotidie clamamus ad De- 
um, et dicimus, Dimitte, ae 
[lla crimina caveantur, que publi- 
cata suos auctores humano faciunt 
damnari judicio. 


186 The crimes for which XVI. ii 


victed of them, they make them liable to be punished by human 
judgment :’ meaning, that such capital offences were the crimes 
which subjected men to excommunication, and not those lesser 
faults, which were only matter of daily repentance. 

Cassian observes seven kinds of human failings, which he 
distinguishes from mortal sins: saying 5], ‘It is one thing to 
commit mortal sin, and another to be overtaken with an evil 
thought, or to offend by ignorance, or forgetfulness, or an idle 
word, which easily slips from us, or by a short hesitation in 
some point of faith, or the subtle ticklings of vain-glory, or by 
necessity of nature to fall short of perfection. For these 
seven ways a holy man is liable to fall; and yet he does not 
cease to be righteous, and though they seem to be but small 
sins, yet they are enough to prove that he cannot be without 
sin: for he has upon this account need of a daily repentance, 
and is obliged in truth without any dissimulation to ask pardon, 
and pray continually for his sins, saying, “Forgive us our 
trespasses.” ’ 

Gregory Nyssen has a Canonical Epistle concerning disci- 
pline, wherein, as Du Pin® observes, he makes an exact 
enumeration of those sins which subjected men to public 
penance, which are all enormous sins and considerable crimes, 
such as idolatry, apostasy, divination, murder, adultery, theft, 
and sacrilege. From all which it is very evident, that by the 
ancient rules no crimes were to be punished with excommuni- 
cation, but those that were of the highest nature, which they 
called mortal sins; nor yet all remote violations of the moral 
law, but only the more immediate, direct, and professed trans- 





61 Collat. 22. c. 13. (p. 586.) 
Aliud est enim admittere mortale 
peccatum, et aliud est cogitatione, 
que peccato non caret, preveniri, 
vel ignorantiz aut oblivionis errore, 
aut facilitate otiosi sermonis offen- 
dere, aut ad punctum in fidei the- 
oria aliquid hesitare, aut subtili 
quadam cenodoxie titillatione pul- 
sari, aut necessitate nature aliquan- 
tisper a summa perfectione recedere. 
Hee enim sunt septem lapsuum 
genera, in quibus sanctus licet non- 
nunquam cadat, tamen justus esse 
non desinit ; quze quamvis levia esse 
videantur ac parva, tamen faciunt 


eum sine peccato esse non posse. Ha- 
bet enim, pro quibus quotidianam 
gerens peenitudinem, et veniam ve- 
raciter debeat postulare, et pro suis 
indesinenter orare peccatis, dicens, 
Dimitte nobis debita nostra. 

62 [Bibliothéque, cent. 4. (t. 2. p. 
276. S. Ambroise.) Ceci peut étre 
confirmé par la Lettre Canonique 
de Saint Grégoire de Nysse a 
toius, ot il fait un denombrement 
exact des péchés sotimis ἃ la péni- 
tence publique, qui sont tous péchés 
énormes, et crimes considérables. 
Grischov. ] 





censures were inflicted. 


187 


gressions of it. Of the species and effects of anger, as Gregory 
Nyssen © observes, they inflicted canonical and public penance 
upon murder; but not upon the inferior degrees of it, such as 
stripes, and evil-speaking, or other effects of anger, which are 
prohibited in Scripture, and bring men in danger of eternal 
death. So of all the degrees of covetousness, which are very 
many and heinous, they punished none with excommunication 
but only notorious oppression, and theft, and robbing of graves, 
and sacrilege, and the like. 

So that when they sometimes call sins of this middle rank, 
light and venial sins, in contradistinction to those they termed 
mortal, they do not mean what now the vulgar casuists of the 
Romish Church mean by venial sins, but only that they were 
not of the number of those capital crimes, for which the 


Church subjected men to excommunication, and enjomed them 


public repentance. Which the learned reader may find not 
only accurately demonstrated by Mr. Daille®, but ingenuously 
confessed by Du Pin, and also Petavius © before him. Daille 
transcribes Petavius’s words, and I shall here transcribe those 
of Du Pin“: «I would not have it thought,’ says he, ‘ that 


63 Ep. ad Leont. tot. presertim 
ec. 5 et 6. (t. 2. p. 119 c. et p. 121 
a.) 
64 De Confess. Auricular. 1. 4. 
c. 20. (p. 428.) Jam alteram partem 


c. 

65 Animadvers. in Epiphan. Her. 
50. (t. 2. p. 238.) Principio peccato- 
rum apud antiquos invenio genera 
fuisse duo. Aliamortalia sive capitalia 
dicebantur: non ut nos intelligere 
vulgo solemus, quzecunque Dei nos 
gratia ac spiritalibus caritatis orna- 
mentis spoliant, sed hujus generis 
certa duntaxat, que cum graviora 
ceteris essent, tum canonibus ac 
synodorum decretis nominatim ex- 
pressa: hc, inquam, capitalia no- 
minabant, quibus pcenze a canoni- 
bus sigillatim proposite. .... Alia 
vero leviora, et quotidiana diceban- 
tur; sive que nos venialia nuncu- 
pamus, sive alioqui mortalia, sed de 

uibus nulla nominatim exstaret in 

Jonciliorum decretis mentio; quale 
verbi gratia esse potest asperius in 
quenquam maledictum, aut convi- 


cium, perjurium, aliaque sexcenta ; 
que quanquam letalia sint, nulle 
tamen iis a canonibus erant pene 
constitute. 

66 Bibliothéque, cent. 4. p. 219. (t. 
2. p. 276. utsupra.) Qu’on ne croie 
pas, que je fasse ces remarques, 
pour autoriser le relachement, ou 
pour insinuer qu’il y a des péchés 
mortels, qui peuvent passer pour 
veniels: ἃ Dieu ne plaise, que j’aie 
une si détestable intention ! Au con- 
traire, mon but est de donner de 
Vhorreur de tous les péchés. Pre- 
miérement, des grands crimes; se- 
condement, des péchés qui peuvent 
étre mortels, quoi qu’ils ne parois- 
sent pas si énormes; et troisiéme- 
ment, des péchés méme les plus 
légers. Mai j’ai cra, que j’étois 
obligé de remarquer ici, pour ex- 
pliquer le passage de Saint Am- 
broise, qu’il n’y avoit que les péchés 
de la premiére classe, qui fussent 
soumis ἃ la pénitence publique, et 
que c’est de ceux-la seulement que 
les Péres parlent, et qu’ils compren- 


= 


Υ 
188 The crimes for which XVI. ii 


I make these remarks to authorize licentiousness, or to in- 
sinuate that there are some mortal sins that may pass for 
venial: God forbid, that I should have so detestable a design ! 
On the contrary, my intention is to create an horror of all 
sins; first, of great crimes; secondly, of sins which may be 
mortal, though they appear not so enormous; and, thirdly, 
even of slighter sins also. But I thought myself obliged to 
observe here, for explaining a passage in St. Ambrose, that 
none but the sins of the first class did subject men to public 
penance, and that it is of these only the Fathers speak, and 
which they comprehend under the name of enormous sins and 
crimes ; though there be others which may be also mortal, and 
which a Christian ought carefully to shun; but then they are 
such for which he was never subjected to the humiliation of 
a public penance, but only to corrections and reprimands given 
in secret, as St. Austin informs us.’ These observations are 
very just: for it is certain the Fathers speak against all sins, 
even those of the lowest rank, as dangerous and mortal, if 
neglected and wilfully indulged, and not carefully opposed by 
striving against them, and washing away the guilt by daily 
repentance: according to what we have heard St. Austin say 
before®’, that a multitude of lesser sins overwhelm and kill the 
soul, if they be neglected; as a small leak in a ship, if it be 
not carefully stopped or drained, will sink it, as well as a 
bigger wave: which comparison he uses in many ® places. 


ras. Levia multa faciunt unum 
grande. Multe gutte implent flu- 
men: multa grana faciunt massam. 


nent sous le nom de péchés énor- 
mes et de crimes; quoi qu’il y en 
ait d’autres, qui peuvent aussi étre 


*mortels, qu’un Chrétien doit soig- 

neusement €viter, mais pour les- 
quels il n’étoit pas soumis a l’hu- 
miliation de la pénitence publique, 
mais seulement a des corrections, et 
a des réprimandes faites en secret, 
comme Saint Augustin nous l’en- 
seigne. 

6 Tractat. 12. in Ioan. p. 47. See 
before, n. 43, preceding. 

68 Tractat. 1. in 1 loan. p. 237. 
(t. 9.@part. 2: π᾿ 630'c.) .... Non 
potest homo, quamdiu carnem por- 
tat, nisi habere vel levia peccata. 
Sed ista levia que dicimus, noli 
contemnere. Si contemnis, quando 
appendis ; expavesce, quando nume- 


—Serm. 3. in Psalm. 118. p. 545. 
(t. 4. p. 1283 g.) .... Quando, ad- 
versus majora vigilantibus, que- 
dam incautis minuta subrepunt; 
que si adversus nos colligantur, 
etsi non singula suis molibus con- 
terunt, omnia tamen acervo nos 
obruunt.—Ep. 108. (See before, s. 
14, the last part of n. 45, pre- 
ceding.— Hom. ult. ex 50. [al. Serm. 
351. 6. 3.] (Ὁ. 5. p. 1355 8.) Que 
[peccata ] quamvis singula non le- 
tali vulnere ferire sentiantur, sicuti 
homicidium, et adulterium, vel czx- 
tera hujusmodi; tamen omnia simul 
congregata velut scabies, quo plura 
sunt, necant, aut nostrum decus ita 


= 


ἢ 


" 


14,15. 


censures were inflicted. 189 


And the reader, that pleases, may find the same caution given 
against lesser sins, as mortal in their own nature, if neglected 
and indulged, by Nazianzen®, Basil7°, Jerom7!, Gregory the 
Great 72, and many others 73, who say, there is no sin so small 
but that in rigour of justice it would prove mortal, if God 
would enter into judgment with us, and be extreme to mark 
what is done amiss against his law, and especially in contempt 
of it. But to return to the business in hand. 
15. As it was a general rule not to use excommunication for Excommu- 
slight offences, so, we may observe, it was no rule to use this nication not 


inflicted for 
weapon, as in after-ages, for mere pecuniary matters and tem- temporal 


poral causes. It has frequently been complained of by learned “""* 


men, both of the Protestant and Roman communion, that this 
is a great abuse of excommunication 75, that it is often issued 


exterminant, vt ab illius sponsi 
speciosi forma pre filiis hominum 
castissimis amplexibus separent, ni- 
si medicamento quotidiane pceni- 
tentiz desiccentur. 

69 Orat. 31. (t. 1. p. 504 a.) To 
κατὰ μέρος ὑφελκόμενον καὶ κλεπτό- 
μενον, ἀνεπαίσθητον μὲν τὴν πρὸς τὸ 
πάρον ἔχει βλάβην, εἰς τὸ κεφάλαιον 
δὲ τῆς κακίας ἀπαντᾷ. 

70 Regul. Brev. 4. (t. 2. part. 2. 
Ρ- 283 6.) ᾿Ερώτησι:" , Ἐάν τις καὶ 
εἰς τὰ μικρὰ ἁμαρτήματα στενο- 
χωρῇ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς, λέγων, ὅτι 
aaa μετανοῆσαι, μή ποτε Kal av- 
τὸς ἄσπλαχνός ἐστι, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην 
καταλύει; ᾿Απόκρισις: Τοῦ Κυρίου 
διαβεβαιωσαμένου μὲν, ὅτι ἰῶτα ἕν, 
ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται ἀποφῃ- 
ναμένου δὲ, ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν, ὃ 
ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀπο- 
δώσουσι περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
κρίσεως" οὐδενὸς δεῖ καταφρονεῖν ὡς 
μικροῦ. 

71 Ep. 14. [al. 148.] ad Celant. 
(t. 1. p. ΙΟΟῚ 6. n.6.) Etsi multum 
inter peccata distare credimus, quia 
et legimus : tamen satis prodesse ad 
cautionem dicimus, etiam minima pro 
maximis cavere. Tanto enim facilius 
abstinemus a quocunque delicto, 
quanto illud magis metuimus. Nec 
cito ad majora progreditur, qui etiam 
parva formidat. Et sane nescio, an 
possimus leve aliquod peccatum di- 


cere, quod in Dei contemptum ad- 
mittitur, &c. 

72 L.2. in c.1. Reg. (t. 3. part. 2. 
Ρ- 59 6. 7.).... Et quia sine peccato 
electi etiam viri esse non possunt, 
quid restat, nisi ut a peccatis, qui- 
bus eos humana fragilitas maculare 
non desinit, evacuari quotidie co- 
nentur? Nam qui quotidie non ex- 
haurit quod delinquit, etsi minima 
sunt peccata que congerit, paulla- 
tim anima repletur, atque ei merito 
auferunt fructum interne saturita- 
tis—Hom. 2. in Ezek. (t. 1. p. 
1185 b. 5.).... Omme enim pec- 
catum grave est, quia non permittit 
animam ad sublimia levari. 

78 [Gennadius, De Eccles. Dog- 
mat. c. 53. (int. Oper. Augustin. t. 
8. append. p. 80 e.) Nullus sanctus 
et justus caret peccato, &c. Ep. ] 

74 See Bp. Taylor, Duct. Dubi- 
tant. Ὁ. 3. ch. 4. p. 617. (rule 9. 
sect. 10. Works, v. 14. p. 6.) In the 
Church of Rome it hath been very 
usual to use excommunications for 
the discovery of thefts, or the mani- 
festation of secret actions. Divers 
examples of which are in the De- 
cretals and later Canons of the 
Church.— See also Du Moulin, 
Buckler of Faith. (p. 369.) They 
do worse than that, &c.—Gentiletus 

. Examen. C. Trident. [Sess. 25.n.18.] 
Ρ. 300. (p. 296.) .... Secundo ejus- 
dem tertii decreti capite, potestas 


190 The erimes for which XVI. il 


forth for the discovery of theft, or the manifestation of secret 
actions. Of which there are divers instances in the Decretals ; 
and approbation is given to them by the Council of Trent 7°, 
only reserving such cases as a special privilege to the bishop ; 
who is to give a premonition to he knows not whom, and con- 
demn a pretended criminal without hearing, contrary to ail the 
rules aforesaid in the primitive Church, which allowed no ex- 
communication in a slight cause, nor in any cause without 
sufficient evidence, and allowing the criminal to speak for him- 
self. So again, as Du Moulin7® observes out of Cardinal 
Tolet, in the Romish Church they excommunicate men for 
future time, and before any crime is committed, and that for 
securing only the stocks or trees of the lord of a town or 
village from spoil, although no man has laid hand upon them. 
At the request of a creditor they excommunicate a debtor, if 
he pay not within a certain term, and his insufficiency to pay 
is the only remedy, in the utmost extremity, which the law of 


the Decretals 77 allows him from so severe a censure. 


datur episcopis decernendorum mo- 
nitoriorum et excommunicationum ; 
ut, a quibus res amisse aut sub- 
tracte possideantur, constare possit. 
Quod veteribus canonibus repugnat, 
qui non ob leves causas, sed ob 
graves tantum, excommunicationis 
gladio spirituali utendum esse san- 
ciunt, &c.—Gerson. de Vita Spi- 
rituali Anime, lect. 4. coroll. 5. 
(t. 3. p. 11 Ὁ. 7.) Nullus idem actus, 
&c. [It. Serm. in Conc. Rhemens. 
part. 2. consider. 2. provisio 2. (t. 2. 
Pp: 552 Ὁ. 7.) Fiat insuper abbreviatio 
tam dispendiosarum litium, modera- 
tio tot excommunicationum, tam a 
jure, quam ab homine fulmina- 
torum. Et hoc nonnunquam pro 
defendenda, seu recuperanda re 
modica, parum utili, vel profana; 
cum tamen baculus iste primitus 
fuerit institutus a Christo tanquam 
durissimum, summumque_ suppli- 
cium, quo nolentes ecclesiam audire 
plecti deberent... Nunc apud quos- 
dam talis regnat stoliditas, qualis 
apud illum, qui, ut muscum abi- 
geret a fronte proximi, ictu securis 
excerebravit eum. Itaque temporalis 
incommoditas vix reputari debet 


musca pungens, per respectum ad 
eternam salutem, quam auferunt 
aliquando percussiones iste per ex- 
communicationes gravissimas, que 
ut in aliquem ceciderint, vix abjici 
possint, trahentibus de una in aliam, 
lupis curiz rapacibus. Grischov. |— 
Gerson, in Bp. Taylor, ibid. See 
n. 78, following. 

75 Sess. 25. Decret. de Reformat. 
c. 3. (t.14. p. 907 a.) .... Excom- 
municationes illz, que, monitionibus 
premissis, ad finem revelationis, ut 
aiunt, aut pro deperditis seu sub- 
tractis rebus ferri solent, a nemine 
prorsus preeterquam ab episcopo de- 
cernantur. 

76 Buckler of Faith, ibid. ex Tolet. 
Instruct. Sacerdot. 1.1. ¢. 8. n. 1. 
(Tolet. p. 15.) Quando fulminatur 
in futurum, quia vel precipitur ali- 
quid faciendum, vel prohibetur ne 
fiat, tunc, dummodo justum sit, 
quod precipitur, resque sit gravis, 
potest excommunicatio ferri in 
transgressores: quia, qui non obe- 
dit, jam sit contumax et inobediens, 

.et mortaliter peccat, et ideo excom- 
municationem contrahit. 

77 L. 3. tit. 23. de Solution. c. 3. 





censures were inflicted. 


191 


But that which is chiefly complained of by their own learned 
Gerson in this matter is the abuse of excommunication in the 


pecuniary concerns of ecclesiastical courts themselves. 


Bishop 


Taylor has alleged him in these words78: ‘ Not every con- 
tumacy against the orders of courts ecclesiastical is to be 


punished with this death. 


If it be in matters of faith or 


manners, then the case is competent: but when it is a ques- 
tion of money and fees, besides that the case is full of envy 
and reproach, apt for scandal, and to bring contempt upon the 
Church, the Church has no direct power in it; and if it have 
by the aid of the civil power, then for that a civil coercion 


must be used. 


It is certainly unlawful to excommunicate any 


man for not paying the fees of courts: for a contumacy there 
is an offence against the civil power, and he hath a sword of 


his own to avenge that. 


But excommunication is a sword to 


avenge the contumacy of them who stubbornly offend against 
the discipline of the Church, in that wherein Christ hath given 
her authority, and that is in the matters of salvation and 
damnation immediate, in such things where there is no secular 
interest, where there can be no dispute, where the offender 
does not sin by consequence and interpretation, but directly 


and without excuse. 


But let it be considered how great a 


reproach it is to ecclesiastical discipline, if it be made to 
minister to the covetousness, or to the needs of proctors and 
advocates: and if the Church shall punish more cruelly than 
eivil courts for equal offences, and because she hath but one 


(ap. Corp. Juris. Canon. t. 2. p. 
1154. 19. vel ap. CC. t. 11. p. 
391 b.) Odoardus clericus propo- 
suit, quod cum P. clericus, D. laicus, 
et — alii ipsum coram officiali 
archi-diaconi Remensis super qui- 
busdam debitis convenissent ; idem 
in eum recognoscentem hujusmodi 
debita, sed propter rerum inopiam 
solvere non valentem, excommuni- 
cationis sententiam promulgavit. ... 
Mandamus, quatenus si constiterit, 
quod predictus O. in totum vel pro 
parte non possit solvere debita supra 
dicta, sententiam ipsam sine diffi- 
cultate qualibet relaxetis, recepta 
prius ab ipso [4]. eo] idonea cau- 
tione, ut si ad pinguiorem fortunam 


devenerit, debita preedicta persol- 
vat. . 
78 De Vita Spirituali, lect. 4. co- 
roll. 7. (t. 3. p. 42. c. 3.) Sola ita- 
que contumacia vera, renuens stare 
judicio ecclesiz reddit hominem 
pro Christiano se gerentem dignum 
excommunicatione .... Porro differt 
plurimum qualis est contumacia et 
quam damnosa ecclesie#, pro qua 
materia et circa quam incurritur. 
Nam pejor est contumacia in ma- 
teria fidei et religionis, quam pu- 
sill queestionis de paucis denariis, 
ubi nunguam tantum prodest obe- 
dientia, quantum obest excommuni- 
catio separativa a spiritualibus suf- 
fragiis et societate sanctorum, &c. 


‘anaes 


192 The crimes for which XVI. iit 


thing to strike withal, if she upon all occasions smites with her 
sword, it will either kill too many, or hurt and affright none at 
411. Whatever force there is in these arguments, or however 
they may affect the Romish Church, for this apparent cor- 
ruption of discipline, they do not in the least affect the pri- 
mitive Church, which was conscious of no such practice. but 
forbad all excommunication for light offences, among which 
pecuniary matters must be reckoned. It is true, bishops some- 
times sat judges in civil causes, and their determinations in 
such cases were peremptory and final: but then their coercive 
power in such judicatures was not excommunication, but civil 
punishments borrowed from the State, and which the State 
obliged itself to see duly put in execution; of which I have 
given an ample account79 heretofore, and shown it to be a very 
different thing from excommunication, or any kind of ecclesias- 
tical censure. 

No bishop 16. I observe further, as very remarkable in this matter, 

allowed to that no bishop was allowed to excommunicate any man for any 


use it to 
avenge any private injury done to himself. For though this might be a 


alee great crime, yet it looked like avenging himself, and therefore 
to himself. it was thought unbecoming his character to right himself by 
excommunication, but either he was to bear the injury patiently, 
or commit his cause to the judgment of others. Upon this ac- 
count Cyprian ®° distinguishes between injuries done to himself 
in his personal and private capacity, and injuries done to the 
detriment of the brethren or whole body of the Church. “1 
can bear and pass over any affront that is put upon my episco- 
pal character, as I have always done, when it only concerned 
my own person; but now there is no longer any room for for- 
bearance, when many of our brethren are deceived by some of 
you, who, whilst they would more plausibly recommend them- 
selves to the lapsers by an unreasonable and hasty restoring 
them to the peace of the Church, do more really prejudice 
their salvation.’ Here he plainly distinguishes between per- 


79 B. 2. ch. 7. v. I. pp. 105, sed dissimulandi nunc locus non est, 
seqq. quando decipiatur fraternitas nostra 

80 Ep. το. [al. 16.] ad Cler. p. 36. a quibusdam vestrum, qui dum sine 
(p. 194.) Contumelium episcopatus ratione restituende salutis plausibiles 
nostri dissimulare et ferre possum, esse cupiunt, magis lapsis obsunt. 
sicut dissimulavi semper et pertuli: 


16, 17. 193 


censures were inflicted. 


sonal injuries, which he could bear without any great resent- 
ment or thoughts of punishing® but those that were of a more 
public nature, and not only affronting to his authority, but pre- 
judicial to the people, those he threatens to animadvert upon 
according to their deserving. We find a like distinction made 
by Gregory the Great*!, who, writing toa certain bishop who 
had excommunicated a man for a private injury done to him- 
self, thus reproves him for it: ‘You show that you think 
nothing of heavenly things, whilst you inflict the curse of 
anathema or excommunication for the avenging a private in- 
jury done to yourself, which the holy canons forbid. Therefore 
be circumspect and cautious for the future, and presume not to 
do any such thing to any man in defence of your own private 
injuries Otherwise you may expect to feel the censures of 
the Church for your presumption.’ That there were ancient 
canons to this purpose in the time of Gregory cannot be 
doubted from his testimony, though I know of none at present 
that speak directly to this particular case ; only in general the 
Council of Sardica 55 forbids bishops to excommunicate any one 
in passion or hasty anger, and allows the injured person to 
appeal to the provincial synod or the neighbouring bishops for 
redress in all such cases. 

17. It is also worth noting, that the Church inflicted the No man to 
severe censures of excommunication upon men for overt acts, eae 
and not for sins in bare design and intention: because though for sins 








$1 L. 2. [part t.] Ep.34. [al. 49.](CC. 
t. 5. p. 1093 b.).... Nihil te ostendis 
de ceelestibus cogitare, sed terrenam 
te conversationem habere significas ; 
dum pro vindicta proprie injurie, 
quod sacris regulis prehibetur, ma- 
ledictionem anathematis invexisti. 
Unde de cztero omnino esto cir- 
cumspectus atque solicitus, et talia 
cuiquam pro defensione proprie in- 
jurie tue inferre denuo non pre- 
sumas. Nam si tale aliquid feceris, 
in te scias postea vindicandum.— 
Vid. Gratian. caus. 23. quest. 4. 
c. 27. (t. 1. p. 1314. 31.) the same 
words. 

& C. 14. (t. 2. p. 640 a) Ὅσιος 
ἐπίσκοπος εἶπε. Τὸ δὲ πάντοτέ pe 
κινοῦν ἀποσιωπῆσαι οὐκ ὀφείλω. Et 
τις ἐπίσκοπος ὀξύχολος εὑρίσκοιτο" 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


ὅπερ οὐκ ὀφείλει ἐν τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ 
πολιτεύεσθαι: καὶ ταχέως ἀντικρὺ 
πρεσβυτέρου ἢ διακόνου κινηθεὶς ἐκ- 
βαλεῖν ἐκκλησίας αὐτὸν ἐθελήσοι" προ- 
νοητέον ἐστὶ, μὴ ἀθρόον [al. ἀθῷον 
τὸν τοιοῦτον κατακρίνεσθαι, καὶ τῆς 
κοινωνίας ἀποστερεῖσθαι. Πάντες εἰ- 
ρήκασιν' ὁ ἐκβαλλόμενος ἐχέτω ἐξ- 
ουσίαν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς μητρο- 
πόλεως τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπαρχίας κατα- 
φυγεῖν: εἰ δὲ ὁ τῆς μητροπόλεως 
ἄπεστιν, ἐπὶ τὴν πλησιόχωρον κατα- 
τρέχειν, καὶ ἀξιοῦν, ἵνα μετὰ ἀκριβείας 
αὐτοῦ ἐξετάζηται τὸ πρᾶγμα. [Juxt. 
Ed. Crabb. Latin. c. 17. (t. 1. p. 333.) 
Osius episcopus dixit, ἕο. This 
edition reads providendum est ne in- 
nocens damnetur, which shows that 
ἀθῷον in the Greek is correct and 
ἀθρόον corrupt. Εἶτ. 
Oo 


194 The crimes for which 


only inde- these might be great sins before God, as our Saviour says, 


sign and 
intention. 


Nor for 
forced or 


involuntary 


actions. 


“He that looks on a woman ἐδ lust after her hath committed 
adultery with her already in his heart ;” [Matth. 5, 28.) yet 
the Church was no proper judge of the heart, and therefore 
she did not ordinarily punish such sins till they made some 
visible appearance in the outward action. This seems to be 
the meaning of that canon of the Council of Neoczsarea 58, 
which says, ‘If a man purpose in his heart to commit fornica- 
tion with a woman, but his lust proceed not into action, it is 
apparent he is delivered by grace.’ That is, he sins before 
God for his wicked design, but the Church inflicts not excom- 
munication upon him because his intention proceeds not to any 
outward act of uncleanness. So Zonaras*4 interprets it among 
the Ancients, and Osiander*> among the modern interpreters. 
Though some think that such intentions, if discovered by any 
overt acts, might bring a man under ecclesiastical censure. 

18. The case is more clear as to all forced and involuntary 
actions, where the will was no way consenting to them. For 
as they were free from sin, so they were from punishment. 
There were some indeed who out of an over-abundant zeal and 
ignorant pretence of purity were for excluding men from com- 
munion for such things, which were more to be reckoned their 
misfortunes than their crimes: but the Council of Ancyra 
prudently corrected this erroneous zeal by a canon®® to this 
purpose: ‘ That communion should not be denied to those who 


BC. a. (δ τὸ ps 1288. Τὴ). Bap 
προθῆταί τις ἐπιθυμῆσαι γυναικὸς, 


clesiastice, &c. 
86 C. 3. (t. 1. p. 1457 a.) Tous 


XVI. i 


συγκαθευδῆσαι. μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, μὴ ἔλθη 
δὲ εἰς ,ἔργον αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐνθύμησις, φαί- 
νεται ὅτι ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος ἐρρύσθη. 

84. In Basil. can. 32. (ap. Bevereg. 
Pandect. t. 2. part 1. p.g2b.) Ἢ 
δὲ pexpi tod βουλεύσασθαι καὶ συγ- 
καταθέσθαι, οὐ πρὸς θάνατον, δηλονότι 
τὸν ψυχικόν" οὐ γὰρ πόρνος ἂν κρι- 
θείη ὁ πορνεῦσαι συγκατατιθέμενος, 
τῆς δὲ πράξεως ἀποσχόμενος" φησὶ 
γὰρ, ὁ τέταρτος κανὼν τῆς ἐν Νεω- 
καισαρείᾳ συνόδου, ᾿Εὰν προθῆταί τις 
ἐπιθυμῆσαι γυναικὸς, κ. τ. λ. 

85 Inc. 4. C. Neocesar. Ed. Wite- 
berg. 1614. (ap. Epitom. Hist. Ec- 
cles. cent. 4. p. 43.) Hoc videtur 
velle hic canon, eum non cadere 
sub poenam aliquam discipline ec- 


φεύγοντας καὶ συλληφθέντας, ἢ ὑπὸ 
οἰκείων παραδοθέντας, 7 ἄλλως τὰ 
ὑπάρχοντα ἀφαιρεθέντας, ἢ ἢ ὑπομένον- 
τας βασάνους, ἢ εἰς δεσμωτήριον ἐ ἐμ- 
βληθέντας, βοῶντας τε ὅτι εἰσὶ Χρι- 
στιανοὶ, καὶ περισχισθέντες, ἤτοι εἰς 
τὰς χεῖρας πρὸς βίαν ἐμβαλλόντων 
τῶν βιαζομένων, ἢ βρῶμά τι πρὸς 
ἀνάγκην δεξαμένους, ὁμολογοῦντας δὲ 
διόλου ὅτι εἰσὶ Χριστιανοὶ, καὶ τὸ 
πένθος τοῦ συμβάντος ἀεὶ ἐπιδεικνυ- 
μένους τῇ πάσῃ καταστολῇ, καὶ τῷ 
σχήματι, καὶ τῇ τοῦ βίου ταπεινότητι" 
τούτους, ὡς ἔξω ἁμαρτήματος ὄντας, 
τῆς κοινωνίας μὴ κωλύεσθαι" εἰ δὲ καὶ 
ἐκωλύθησαν ὑπό τινος, περισσοτέρας 
ἀκριβείας ἕνεκεν, εἰ καί τινων ἀγνοίᾳ, 
εὐθὺς προσδεχθῆναι. 


Ne 





censures were inflicted. 195 


fled, but were apprehended or betrayed by their servants, and 
suffered loss of their estates or torture or imprisonment, de- 
elaring all the while that they were Christians: though they 
were held, and by violence the incense was put into their 
hands, and they were forced to receive meat offered to idols 
into their mouths, declaring themselves all the time to be 
Christians, and showing by their behaviour and habit and 
humble course of life that they were sorry for that which 
happened; these being without sin are not to be debarred 
from communion. Or if by the superabundant caution or ig- 
norance of any they have been debarred, let them forthwith be 
received into communion again.’ And the like is determined 
in the case of women that suffer ravishment against their wills, 
by Gregory Thaumaturgus’?7, and St. Basil**. And so by 
Dionysius of Alexandria’?, and Athanasius%, and others, for 
any inyoluntary defilement whatsoever. 

These were the general measures observed by the Ancients 
to distinguish great and small offences, or innocence from sin, 
in order to show what might or might not bring men under the 
censure of excommunication. But because it will contribute 
much toward the more exact understanding of the ancient dis- 
cipline to know more particularly the several sorts of those 
greater crimes for which men were subjected to the highest 
censures, I will now proceed to make a more distinct inquiry 
into the nature and kinds and degrees of those high mis- 
demeanours in the following chapters. 


87 Ep. Canonic. c. 1. (p. 38 b. et 
CC. t.1. p.837¢.) Ei μέν τοί τις 
ἐν ἄκρᾳ σωφροσύνῃ ζήσασα, καὶ κα- 
θαρὸν, καὶ ἔξω πάσης ὑπονοίας ἐπιδε- 
δειγμένη βίον τὸν πρότερον, νῦν περι- 
πέπτωκεν ἐκ βίας καὶ ἀνάγκης ὕβρει" 


[8]. ἰδίου] δεσπότου, ἀνεύθυνός ἐστιν. 

89 C. 4. (ap. Bevereg. Pandect. 
t.2. p.7 ἃ.) Οἱ & ἐν ἀπροαιρέτῳ vuk- 
τερινῇ ῥύσει γενόμενοι, καὶ οὗτοι τῷ 
ἰδίῳ συνειδότι κατακολουθείτωσαν, 
καὶ ἑαυτοὺς, εἴτε διακρίνονται περὶ τού- 


ἔχομεν παράδειγμα τὸ ἐν τῷ Δευ- 
τερονομίῳ, τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ νεανίδι, ἣν ἐν τῷ 
πεδίῳ εὗρεν ἄνθρωπος, καὶ βιασάμενος 
αὐτὴν, ἐκοιμήθη per αὐτῆς" Τῇ νεανίδι, 
φησὶν, οὐ ποιήσετε οὐδὲν, κι τ.λ. 

85 Ep. Canonic. c. 49. [Oper. Basil. 
Ep. 199. Canonic. Secund. |(CC.t. 2. 
Ρ. 1745 ¢.) Ai πρὸς ἀνάγκην γινόμεναι 

pai, ἀνεύθυνοι ἔστωσαν ὥστε καὶ 
ἢ δούλη, εἰ ἐβιάσθη παρὰ τοῦ οἰκείου 


0 


του, εἴτε μὴ, σκοπείτωσαν, 

9 Ep. ad Amum. ap. Bevereg. 
Pandect. t. 2. part 1. p. 36 ἃ. (Oper. 
Athanas. t.1. part 2. p. 765 c.) Τότε 
yap μόνον μεμολύσμεθα, ὅτε τὴν δυσ- 
ὠδεστάτην ἁμαρτίαν ἐργαζόμεθα" ὅτε 
δὲ φυσική τις ἔκκρισις ἀβουλήτως 
γίνεται, τότε τῇ τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκῃ 
μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων, ὡς προείπομεν, καὶ 
τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν. 


be 


196 The great crimes, XVL iv. 


OHA PY TV 


A particular account of those called great crimes, the princi- 
pal of which was idolatry. Of its several species, and 
degrees of punishment allotted to them according to the 
proportion and quality of the offences. 

The mis- 1. LearNnep men are not well agreed about the number of 
a those which the Ancients called great crimes, with reference to 
the num- the ecclesiastical punishment, nor about the reason and founda- 


ber of ae 5 5 ὶ 
ἘΠ tion of that title. There were some in St. Austin’s time who 


pied were for confining great crimes, for which excommunication 
idolatry, was to be inflicted, to three only, adultery, idolatry, and 
snap murder: these they allowed to be mortal sins, and made no 


der. doubt but that they were to be punished with excommunica- 
tion}, till they were cured by the humiliation of public penance; 
but for all others they said compensation might easily be made 
by giving of alms. This St. Austin labours to confute, not 
only in the place alleged, but in several others*, by which it is 
evident that these were not the only great crimes that were 
punished with excommunication. And therefore those modern 
authors make a wrong representation of the ancient discipline, 
who confine it to those three great crimes, or to such as may 
be reduced to them: since it is apparent from what is now said 
that it extended much further; and, as I shall presently show, 
included all the great crimes against the whole Decalogue, or 
transgressions of the moral law in every instance. 

Tho ac- 2. And it is very observable, that even in the civil law, the 

count given account that is given of great crimes extended much further. 


of great ; 
crimes in For when the emperors, according to custom, at the Easter 


a os festival, granted a general release and indulgence to such as 
3 =~ . . . . . 

tended were imprisoned for their misdemeanours, they still excepted 

much fur- : : . . 5 

fae several other heinous crimes, specified in their laws, some five, 


1 Vid. Augustin. de Fid. et Oper. 2 Hom. ult. ex 50. Seen. 6, fol- 
c. 19. (t.6. p. 184 f, g.) Qui autem lowing.—De Civitat. Dei, 1. 21.c. 27. 
opinantur cetera eleemosynis facile (t.7. p.650a.) Restat eis respondere, 
compensari, tria tamen mortifera qui dicunt eterno igne illos tan- 
esse non dubitent et excommunica- tummodo arsuros, qui pro peccatis 
tione punienda, donec peenitentia suis facere dignas eleemosynas ne- 
humiliore sanentur, impudicitiam, gligunt, &c. 
idololatriam, homicidium. 





Ε ay'2. idolatry, Sc. 1917 


some six, some eight, some ten, which cannot be reduced to 
the three crimes of idolatry, adultery, and murder. The laws 
of Valentinian and Gratian® except seven capital crimes from 
any benefit of such indulgence, viz. sacrilege, treason, robbing 
of graves, necromancy, adultery, ravishment, and murder. 
The laws of Theodosius the Great* except eight capital crimes; 
treason, parricide, murder, adultery, ravishment, incest, necro- 
mancy, and counterfeiting of the imperial coin. And those of 
Valentinian Junior® except ten; sacrilege, adultery, incest, ra- 
vishment, robbing of graves, charms, necromancy, counterfeit- 
ing the coin, murder, and treason. Now when the civil law 
excepted so many great crimes, under the name of atrocia de- 


3 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 38. de 
Indulgentiis Criminum, leg. 3. (t. 3. 
p. 271.) Ob diem Pasche, quem 
intimo corde celebramus, omnibus, 
quos reatus astringit et carcer in- 
clusit, claustro dissolvimus. Atta- 
men sacrilegus, in majestate reus, 
in mortuos veneficus, sive maleficus, 
adulter, raptor, homicida commu- 
nione istius muneris separentur.— 
Conf. leg. 4. (ibid. p. 273.) Pasche 
celebritas postulat, ut quoscunque 
nunc #gra exspectatio quéestionis 
poeneeque formido solicitat, absolva- 
mus: decretis tamen Veterum mos 
gerendus est, ne temere homicidii 
crimen, adulterii foeditatem, majes- 
tatis injuriam, maleficiorum scelus, 
insidias venenorum, raptusque vio- 
lentiam, sinamus evadere. 

4 Ibid. leg. 6. (p. 275.) Paschalis 
letitize dies ne illa quidem tenere 
sinit ingenia, que flagitia fecerunt : 
pateat insuetis horridus carcer ali- 
quando luminibus. Alienum autem 
censemus ab indulgentia, τ. qui ne- 
fariam criminum conscientiam in 
majestatem superbe animaverit : 2. 
qui parricidali furore raptus san- 
guine proprio manum tinxit: 3. qui 
cujusque preterea hominis cede 
maculatus est: 4. qui genialis tori 
ac lectuli fuit invasor alieni: 5. qui 
verecundiz virginalis raptor exsti- 
tit: 6. qui venerandum cognati san- 
guinis vinculum profano cecus vio- 
lavit incestu: vel 7. qui, noxiis que- 
sita graminibus et diris immurmu- 
rata secretis, mentis et corporis ve- 
nena composuit: aut 8. qui sacri 


oris imitator et divinorum vultuum 
appetitor venerabiles formas sacri- 
legio erucitus impressit. 

5 Ibid. leg. 7. (p. 276.) Religio 
anniversariz obsecrationis hortatur, 
ut omnes omnino periculo carceris 
metuque pcenarum eximi jubere- 
mus, gui leviore crimine rei sunt 
postulati. Unde apparet, eos excipi, 
quos atrox cupiditas in scelera com- 
pulit seeviora: in quibus est 1. pri- 
mum crimen et maxime, majestatis : 
2. deinde homicidii: 3. veneficiique, 
ac 4. maleficiorum: 5. stupri, atque 
6. adulterii, parique immanitate sa- 
crilegii, 7. sepulcri violatio: 8. rap- 
tus, 9. moneteque adulterata figu- 
ratio.—Leg. 8. (ibid. p. 277.) Ubi 
primum dies Paschalis exstiterit, 
nullum teneat carcer inclusum, om- 
nium vincula solvantur. Sed ab his 
secernimus eos, quibus contaminari 
potius gaudia letitiamque commu- 
nem, si dimittantur, advertimus. 
Quis enim 1. sacrilego diebus sanc- 
tis indulgeat? quis 2. adultero, vel 
3. incesti reo tempore castitatis ig- 
noscat? quis non "4. raptorem in 
summa quiete et gaudio communi 
persequatur instantius? 5. Nullam 
accipiat requiem vinculorum, qui 
quiescere sepultos quadam sceleris 
immanitate non sivit: patiatur tor- 
menta 6. veneficus, 7. maleficus, 8. 
adulteratorque monete: 9. homi- 
cida, quod fecit semper exspectet: 
10. reus etiam majestatis, de domi- 
no, adversum quem talia molitus 
est, veniam sperare non debet. 


198 XVI. iv. 


The great crimes, 


licta, from the benefit of these indulgences, it is not probable, 
were there no other argument to persuade it, that the ecclesi- 
astical law would let any of those heinous offences go unpun- t 
ished, or wholly escape the severity of Church-censure. 
nthe 9, But we have clearer and more certain evidence in the. 

ee abatn ease. For first St. Austin® says, the great crimes, which were 

account of punished with public penance, were such as were against the 

so ΙΕ δὲν τὰ whole Decalogue or Ten Commandments, of which the Apostle 

ed says, “ They which do such things shall not inherit the king- 
dom of God.” [Gal. 5, 21.] Only, as Mr. Daille? rightly ob- 
serves, we must interpret this of capital crimes directly and 
expressly forbidden in the law, not of all remote branches or 
lower degrees of sin, that may any way whatsoever be reduced 
to the principal crime, or indirectly come under the prohibi- 
tion. For otherwise it would not be true that all sins forbidden 
in the Decalogue brought men under public penance, since 
there are some transgressions only conceived in the heart, and 
never completed in outward action’, which, though they might 
be great breaches of the law, yet they could not come under 
public censure, but were to be cured by private repentance. 

4, Supposing, therefore, that there were many great crimes 
tion of the against every precept of the moral law, which might bring men 
greatcrimes under ecclesiastical censure and public penance, we will now 
against the - : 

% proceed in the order of the Decalogue, to consider the nature, 


And in the 


A particular 


First and 


6 Hom. ult. ex 50. c.4. t.10. p. p. 519 6.) Sunt ergo, qui pec- 


205. [al. Serm. 351.] (t. 5. Ρ. 1386 6.) 
Tertia actio est poenitentiz, que pro 
illis peccatis subeunda est, que Legis 
Decalogus continet : et de quibus 
Apostolus ait, Quoniam qui talia 
agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt. 

7 De Confess. Auricular. 1. 4. c. 
20. (p. 431. post med.) ..... Id de 
solis capitalibus delictis diserte in 
Decalogo vetitis esse accipiendum. 
Nam id, si latius de quibusvis in 
Decalogo quomodocunquevetitis su- 
matur, evidenter falsum erit, cum 
constet, non modo, que hodie ab 
adversariis venialia dicuntur, sed et 
alia multo plura, queecunque scilicet 
a veteribus inter capitalia minime 
numerabantur, publice poenitentic 
nequaquam olim fuisse obnoxia. 

8 Vid. Augustin. Hom. 44. deVerb. 
Dom. c. 5. [al. Serm. 98.] (t. 5. 


catum intus in corde®* habent, in 
facto nondum habent. Nescio quis 
commotus est δ] τα concupiscen- 
tia. Dicit enim ipse Dominus, Quz 
videret mulierem ad concupiscendam 
eam, jam mechatus est eam in corde 
suo. Nondum accessit corpore, con- 
sensit in corde ; mortuum intus ha- 
bet; nondum extulit. Et ut fit, ut 
novimus, ut quotidie homines in se 
experiuntur, aliquando audito verbo 
Dei, tanquam'Domino dicente, Surge, 
condemnatur consensus ad iniquita- 
tem; respiratur in salutem atque 
justitiam. Surgit mortuus in domo, 
reviviscit cor in cogitationis secreto. 
Facta est ista resurrectio anime 
mortue intus intra latebras consci- 
entiz, tanquam intra domesticos 
parietes.—Conf. Dall. ubi supra, 1. 





ὃ 3, 4, 5. idolatry, Sc. 199 
Second 


and kinds, and punishment of them. The great crimes against 
the First and Second Commandments, which were commonly air ‘a 
joined together, were comprised under the general names of eee 
apostasy and irreligion; which comprehended the several spe- veral spe- 
cies of idolatry; blaspheming and denying Christ in time of aastirtie 
persecution ; using the wicked arts of divination, magic, and of it. 
enchantments; and dishonouring God by sacrilege and simony, 
by heresy and schism, and other such profanations and abuses, 
corruptions and contempts of his true religion and service. All 
a these were justly reputed great crimes, and ordinarily punished 
with the severest ecclesiastical censures. 

5. Of idolaters there were several sorts. Some went openly Of the sa- 
to the temples, and there offered incense to the idols, and were phenert sy 
partakers of the sacrifices. These were distinguished by the or such as 

- : : : fell into 
name of sacrijicati and thurificati, as we find them often jgolatry by 
styled in Cyprian 9, who speaks of them as defiling both their ofering in- 
hands and mouths by the sacrilegious touch: meaning their idols, and 
hands by offeritig incense, and their mouths by eating of the pra 

sacrifices. And of these also there were several degrees. Some, crifices. 
as soon as ever a persecution was set on foot, before they were 
ealled upon, or had any violence offered to them, went volun- 
tarily to the temples, and offered sacrifice of their own accord ; 
whilst others held out a long time against torture, and only 
sacrificed when the utmost necessity compelled them. Cyprian!° 
makes a great difference between these two sorts of lapsers, as 
he does also between those, who went not only themselves, but 


compelled their wives and children, and servants and friends, 


9 Ep. 15. [al. 20.] ad Cler. Rom. tum opus necessitate pervenit. Ile, 


me 4a. (p.199.)..... Qui sacrilegis 
contactibus manus suas atque ora 
maculassent.— Ep. 52. [8]. 55.] ad 
Antonian. p. 108. (p. 246.) ... Pla- 
cuit sacrificatis in exitu subveniri, 
quia exomologesis apud inferos non 


est. 

10 Thid. p. 106. (p. 245.) Nec tu 
existimes. . .libellaticos cum sacrifi- 
catis zequari oportere; quando inter 
ipsos etiam qui sacrificaverint, et 
conditio frequenter et causa diversa 
est. Neque enim equandi sunt, ille 
qui ad sacrificium nefandum statim 
voluntate prosilivit: et qui relucta- 
tus et congressus diu ad hoe funes- 


qui et se et omnes suos prodidit ; et 
qui ipse, pro cunctis ad discrimen 
accedens, uxorem et liberos et do- 
mum totam periculi sui perfunctio- 
ne protexit: ille, qui inquilinos vel 
amicos suos ad facinus compulit ; 
et qui inquilinis et colonis pepercit ; 
fratres etiam plurimos, qui extorres 
et profugi recedebant, in sua tecta 
et hospitia recepit, ostendens et of- 
ferens Domino multas viventes et 
incolumes animas, que pro una 
saucia deprecentur.—Vid. Petr. A- 
lexandr. cc. 1, 2, 3, ap. Bevere 

Pandect. t. 2. part. 1. pp. 8, 9. (CC. 


t. 1. p. 955:) 


200 XVI. iv: 


to go and sacrifice with them; and those, who, to deliver their 
families and friends from danger, went and exposed themselves 
alone; by this means protecting not only their own families, 
but also many Christian brethren and strangers, that were 
banished, and had fied, to take shelter in their houses, who 
were as so many living intercessors to God for them. They 
who did thus, he thinks were much more excusable than those, 
who both went voluntarily, and by their counsel and authority 
compelled many others to go along with them. Whose crimes 
he therefore elegantly describes and aggravates after this 
manner in his book De Lapsis!!: ‘They did not stay till they 
were apprehended to go to the capital, but denied the faith 
before any question was asked them about it. They were 
conquered before the fight, and fell without any engagement. 
They ran to the forum of their own accord, and made haste to 
give themselves the mortal wound, as their own voluntary act, 
without compulsion: as if they had desired this long before, 
and now only embraced the opportunity that Was given them, 
which they always wished for. How was it, that when they 
went so readily to the capital to do this wicked act, their legs 
did not sink under them, and their eyes grow dim, and their 
bowels tremble, and their arms fall down, and their senses be- 
come stupid, and their tongue falter, or cleave to the roof of 
their mouth, and their words fail them’ Could the servant of 
God stand there, and speak and renounce Christ, who had be- 
fore renounced the Devil and the world? Was not that altar, 
whither he came to die, more like his funeral pile? Ought he 
not to have abhorred and fled from the altar of the Devil, as 


The great crimes, 


1) P, 124. (p. 89.) Non exspecta- 
p. &9 Ρ 


suum purget; cum vim magis ipse 
verunt, ut ascenderent apprehensi, 


fecerit, ut periret? Nonne quando 


aut interrogati negarent. Ante aciem 
multi victi, sine congressione pro- 
strati; nec hoe sibi reliquerunt, ut 
sacrificare idolis viderentur inviti. 
Ultro ad forum currere, ad mortem 
sponte properare; quasi hoc olim 
cuperent, quasi amplecterentur oc- 
casionem datam, quam semper op- 
tassent. Quid illi, qui a magistra- 
tibus vespera urgente dilati sunt, 
quod ne eorum differretur interitus, 
etiam rogaverunt? Quam vim po- 
test talis obtendere, qua crimen 


ad capitolium sponte ventum est, 
quando ultro ad obsequium din 
facinoris accessum est, labavit gres- 
sus, caligavit aspectus, tremuerunt 
viscera, brachia conciderunt? Non- 
ne sensus obstupuit, lingua heesit, 
sermo defecit? Stare illic potuit 
Dei servus, et loqui, et renuntiare 
Christo; qui jam Diabolo renunti- 
arat et seculo? Nonne ara illa, quo 
moriturus accessit, rogus illi fuit ὃ 
Nonne Diaboli altare, quod fcetore 
tetro fumare ac redolere conspex- 





§ 5. 


. “ | ais 


idolatry, Sc. 201 


his coffin or his grave, when he saw it smoke and fume with a 
stinking smell? To what purpose, thou miserable wretch, didst 
thou bring thy oblation, and put thy sacrifice upon the altar? 
Thou thyself wert the victim, thou thyself the sacrifice and 
burnt-offering. There thou didst sacrifice thy salvation, and 
burn thy faith and thy hope in those abominable fires. But 
many were not content with their own destruction; the people 
provoked one another into ruin by mutual calls and exhorta- 
tions, and the cup of death was handed round by every man 
to his neighbour. And, that nothing might be wanting to con- 
summate the crime, parents carried their children in their 
arms, or led them after them, that their little ones might lose 
what they had gained in their first birth. Will not they say, 
when the day of judgment comes, We did nothing ourselves ; 
we did not leave the bread and cup of the Lord, to run of our 
own accord to those profane contagions: it was the treachery 
of others that destroyed us, our parents were guilty of parri- 
cide towards us. They deprived us of the privilege of having 
the Church for our mother, and God for our Father; that 
whilst we were little, and unable to care for ourselves, and 
ignorant of so great a wickedness, we should be taken and be- 
trayed by other men’s frauds, being by them made partners in 
their offences.’ Thus far Cyprian, aggravating the crimes of 
those who showed such a forwardness to commit idolatry, and 
apostatize with greediness and delight. 

Now as these were some of the highest degrees of idolatry, 
so the Church put a remarkable difference between them and 
others in her punishments, setting a more peculiar mark or 


note of distinction upon them in her censures. There are 


erat, velut funus et bustum vite 
sue horrere ac fugere debebat ? 
Quid hostiam tecum miser, quid 
victimam supplicaturus imponis ὃ 
Ipse ad aras hostia, victima ipse 
venisti. Immolasti illic salutem 
tuam ; spem tuam, fidem tuam fu- 
nestis illis ignibus concremasti. Ac 
multis proprius interitus satis non 
fuit, hortamentis mutuis in exitium 
suum populus impulsus est: mors 
invicem letali poculo propinata est. 
Ac, nequid deesset ad criminis cu- 
mulum, infantes quoque parentum 
manibus vel impositi vel attracti : 


amiserunt parvuli, quod in primo 
statim nativitatis exordio fuerant 
consecuti. Nonne illi, cum judicii 
dies venerit, dicent, Nos nthil feci- 
mus, nec derelicto cibo et poculo 
Domini ad profana contagia sponte 
properavimus : perdidit nos aliena 
perfidia, parentes sensimus parrici- 
das. Illi nobis ecclesiam matrem, 
illi patrem Deum negaverunt ; ut 
dum parvi et improvidi, et tanti fa- 
cinoris ignari, per alios ad consor- 
tium criminum jungimur, aliena 
FSraude caperemur. 


202 The great crimes, XVI. iv. 


several canons in the Council of Ancyra, which plainly show this 
distinction. The fourth canon 13 orders, ‘ that they, who were 
compelled to go to an idol temple, if they went with a pleasing 
air and in a festival habit, and took share of the feast 
with unconcernedness, should do six years’ penance, one as 
hearers only, three as prostrators, and two as co-standers to 
hear the prayers, before they were admitted to full communion 
again. But if they went in a mourning habit to the temple, 
and wept all the time they ate of the sacrifice, then four years 
penance should be sufficient to restore them to perfection.’ 
The eighth canon 18 orders, ‘those who repeated their crime 
by sacrificing twice or thrice to do a longer penance: for 
seven years is appointed to be their term of discipline. And 
by the ninth canon 14, ‘ that if any not only sacrificed themselves, 
but also compelled their brethren, or were the occasion of 
compelling them, then they were to do ten years’ penance, 
as guilty of a more heinous wickedness,’ according as we have 
heard Cyprian represent it. But if any did neither sacrifice, 
nor eat things offered to idols, but only their own meat on an 
Heathen festival in an idol-temple, they were only confined to 
two years penance by the seventh canon !° of the same Council. 

These canons chiefly respect such as transgressed after some 
violence or force put upon them, by torture or banishment, or 
imprisonment, or confiscation, or the like necessity in any other 
kind of trial: but if any voluntarily apostatized and prevari- 
cated without compulsion, a severer punishment was laid upon 


12 [CC. ASE. {{{ Ἰ2 }}} 1457 ¢- ) Περὶ χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνησάτωσαν, 


τῶν πρὸς βίαν θυσάντων, ἐ ἐπὶ δὲ τού- 
τοις καὶ τῶν δειπνησάντων εἰς τὰ εἴ- 
δωλα, ὅσοι μὲν ἀπαγόμενοι, καὶ σχή- 
ματι φαιδροτέρῳ ἀνῆλθον, καὶ ἐσθῆτι 
ἐχρήσαντο πολυτελεστέρᾳ, καὶ μετέ- 
σχον τοῦ παρασκευασθέντος δείπνου 
ἀδιαφόρως" ἔδοξεν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀκροᾶσ- 
θαι, ὑ ὑποπεσεῖν δὲ τρία ἔτη, εὐχῆς δὲ 
μόνης κοινωνῆσαι ἔτη δύο, καὶ τότε 
ἐλθεῖν ἐ ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον. Ὅσοι δὲ ἀνῆλ- 
θον μετὰ ἐσθῆτος πενθικῆς, καὶ ava- 
πεσόντες ἔφαγον μεταξὺ δι ὅλης τῆς 
ἀνακλίσεως δακρύοντες, εἰ ἐπλήρωσαν 
τὸν τῆς ὑποπτώσεως τριετῆ χρόνον, 
χωρὶς προσφορᾶς δεχθήτωσαν. 

18. Ὁ, 8. (ibid. c.) Οἱ δὲ δεύτερον 
καὶ τρίτον θύσαντες μετὰ βίας, τε- 
τραετίαν ὑποπεσέτωσαν, δύο δὲ ἔτη 


καὶ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τελείως δεχθήτωσαν. 

14 Ὁ. 9. (ibid. Ρ- 1460 c.)” Οσοι δὲ 
μὴ μόνον ἀπέστησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπα- 
νέστησαν, καὶ ἠνάγκασαν ἀδελφοὺς, 
καὶ αἴτιοι ἐγένοντο τοῦ ἀναγκασθῆναι" 
οὗτοι ἔτη μὲν τρία τὸν τῆς ἀκροάσεως 
δεξάσθωσαν τόπον, ἐν δὲ ἄλλῃ ἑξαετίᾳ 
τὸν τῆς ὑποπτώσεως" ἄλλον δὲ ἐνιαυ- 
τὸν κοινωνησάτωσαν χωρὶς προσφο- 
pas’ ἵνα τὴν δεκαετίαν πληρώσαντες, 
τοῦ τελείου μετάσχωσιν. 

ἰδ Ὁ. 4. (ibid. b.) Περὶ τῶν συν- 
εστιαθέντων ἐν ἑορτῇ ἐθνικῇ ἐν τόπῳ 
ἀφωρισμένῳ τοῖς ἐθνικοῖς, ἴδια βρώ- 
ματα ἐπικομισαμένων καὶ φαγόντων" 
ἔδοξε διετίαν ὑποπεσόντας δεχθῆναι. 


Grischov. | 


»" νυ -ὦςο 


§ 5: 


E—E——————————————— 


idolatry, §c. 203 


them: for by the rules of the Council of Nice'® they were to 
undergo twelve years’ penance before they were perfectly 
restored again to full communion. And the same term 1s 
appointed by the second Council of Arles 17, which refers to 
the Nicene canon. The Council of Valence?5, in France goes 
a little further, and obliges them to do penance all their lives, 
and allows them absolution only at the hour of death, which 
they were to expect more fully from the hands of God only, 
who alone had the absolute power of it, and was infinite in 
mercy. that no one should despair. Agreeable to which is 
that rule of Siricius’!9, ‘that apostates should do penance all 
their lives, and be reconciled only at the hour of death.’ The 
Council of Eliberis goes beyond this, and denies such apostates 
communion at the very last extremity 2°, because this was the 
great and principal crime above all others. And sometimes 
adultery and murder were a sort of accessories or concomitants 
of this idolatry, as many times it was in the heathenish games 
and shows, which were made up of idolatry, adultery, and 
murder: upon which account this same Council has another 
canon 2!, which orders, ‘ that if any Christian took upon him 
the office of a flamen, or Roman priest, and therein offered 
sacrifice, doubling and trebling his crime by murder and adul- 
tery, he should not be received to communion at the hour of 


16 C, 11. (t. 2. p. 33 4.) Περὶ τῶν 
παραβάντων “χωρὶς ἀνάγκης, ἢ “χωρὶς 
ἀφαιρέσεως ὑ ὑπαρχόντων, ἢ χωρὶς κιν- 
δύνου, ἤ ἤ τινος τοιούτου, ὃ γέγονεν ἐπὶ 
τῆς τυραννίδος Δικινίου" ἔδοξε τῇ συν- 
όδῳ, κἂν ἀνάξιοι ἢ ἦσαν φιλανθρωπίας, 
ὅμως χρηστεύσασθαι εἰς αὐτούς. Ὅσοι 
οὖν γνησίως μεταμέλονται, τρία ἔτη 
ἐν “ἀκροωμένοις ποιήσουσιν οἱ πιστοὶ, 
καὶ ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται" δύο δὲ 
ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνήσουσι 
τῷ λαῷ τῶν προσευχῶν. 

17 Ὁ. το. (t. 4. p. 1012 c.) De his, 
qui in persecutione prevaricati sunt, 
si voluntarie fidem negaverint, hoc 
de eis Nicena Synodus statuit, ut 
quinque annos inter catechumenos 
exigant, et duos inter communi- 
cantes, &c. 

18 C. 3. (t. 2. Ρ. 905 d.)... Acturi 
vero pcenitentiam usque in diem 
mortis, non sine spe tamen remis- 
sionis, quam ab eo plene sperare 


debebunt, qui ejus largitatem et 
solus obtinet, et tam diu [al. dives] 
ei misericordia est, ut nemo despe- 
ret. 

19 Ep. 1. ad Himerium, c. 3. (ibid. 
p- 1018 e.) His [apostatis], quamdiu 
vivunt, agenda peenitentia est, et in 
ultimo fine suo reconciliationis gra- 
tia tribuenda. 

20 C. 1. (t. 1. p. 969 e.) Placuit 
inter eos, qui ἐπ τι fidem baptismi 
salutaris, adulta «tate, ad templum 
idolatraturus accesserit,- et fecerit 
quod est crimen principale, quia 
est summum scelus, nec in fine 
eum communionem accipere. 

21 C. 2. (ibid. 6.) Flamines, qui 
post fidem lavacri et regenerationis 
sacrificaverunt; eo quod geminave- 
rint scelera, accedente homicidio ; 
vel triplicaverint facinus, coherente 
meechia; placuit eos nec in fine ac- 
cipere communionem. 


Of the 
libellatici; 
wherein 
their idola- 
try con- 
sisted. 


204 


death.’ Nor need we wonder at this severity, since Cyprian 22 
assures us, that before his time many of his predecessors in 
the province of Afric refused to grant communion to adulterers 
to the very last; and yet they did not divide communion from 
their fellow bishops, who practised otherwise. And he says 
further, concerning voluntary deserters and apostates 23, who 
continued in rebellion all their lives, and only desired penance 
when some infirmity seized them, ‘ that they were cut off from 
all hopes of communion and peace; because it was not repent- 
ance for their fault, but the fear of approaching death that 
made them desire a reconciliation; and they were not worthy 
to receive that comfort at their death, who would not consider 
all their life before that they were lable to die.’ The first 
Council of Arles made a like decree 24, ‘ that such as volun- 
tarily apostatized, and never after sued to the Church, nor 
desired to do penance all their lives, till some infirmity seized 
them, should not be received to communion, unless they re- 
covered and brought forth fruits worthy of repentance.’ 

These were the rules by which the ancient discipline was 
regulated and conducted in reference to such idolaters and 
apostates as actually defiled themselves by offering sacrifice to 
idols, whether it were by force or by choice; whether they 
lapsed singly or drew others into the same crime with them- 
selves; and whether they returned immediately and became 
penitents or continued apostates and rebels: according to the 
difference of which circumstances different degrees of punish- 
ment were laid upon them. 

6. Another sort of those who lapsed into idolatry, and were 
charged with denying their religion, were called libellatici, 


The great crimes, 


22 Ep. 3. [al. 4.1 ad Antonian. municationis et pacis; .... quia ro- 


XVI. lv. 


p. 110. (p. 247.) Et quidem apud 
antecessores nostros quidam de epi- 
scopis istic in provincia nostra dan- 
dam pacem meechis non putaverunt, 
et in totum peenitentiz locum con- 
tra adulteria clauserunt, non tamen 
a cO-episcoporum suorum collegio 
recesserunt, &c. 

23 Ibid. p. 111. (p. 248.) Idcirco 
....poeenitentiam non agentes, nec 
dolorem delictorum suorum toto 
corde et manifesta lamentationis 
sue professione testantes, prohiben- 
dos omnino censuimus a spe com- 


gare eos non delicti peenitentia, sed 
mortis urgentis admonitio compel- 
lit; nec dignus est in morte ac- 
cipere solatium, qui se non cogitavit 
esse moriturum. 

24 (Ὁ. 23. [al. 22.] (t. 1. p. 1429 ¢.) 
De his, qui apostant et nunquam se 
ad ecclesiam representant, nec qui- 
dem peenitentiam agere querunt, et 
postea in infirmitate arrepti petunt 
communionem, placuit eis non dan- 
dam communionem, nisi revaluerint, 
et egerint dignos fructus pceniten- 


§ 6. 


idolatry, Sc. 205 


from certain libels or writings which they either gave to the 
Heathen magistrates in private or received from them, to be 
excused doing sacrifice in public. 

Baronius2> thinks there was one sort of libellatici, and that 
they all expressly denied Christ, either by themselves or others ; 
but, being ashamed to sacrifice or deny him in public, they made 
a private renunciation, and for a bribe got a libel of security 
from the magistrate tv indemnify and secure them from being 
sought after, or called upon to sacrifice in public. But other 
learned men2° observe some distinction among them: and 
indeed there seem at least to have been three sorts of them. 

Some expressly gave it under their hands to the magistrate 
that they were no Christians, denying their religion in word 
or writing, as others did in action; professing they were ready 
to sacrifice if the magistrate should call them to it. Cyprian 
often speaks of these, and puts them in the same class with 
those that actually sacrificed. ‘Let not those flatter them- 
selves, says he2/, ‘as if they were excused from doing 
penance, who, although they did not defile their hands with 
the abominable sacrifices, yet defiled their consciences by a /ibel. 
A Christian that professes he denies his religion is witness 
against himself, that he abjures what he was before; he owns 
in words to have done whatever the other did in real action.’ 


Another sort did neither abjure, nor sign any libel or ab- 


25 An. 253. τι. 20. [mn. 18, 19.] 
(t. 2. p. 414 b, d.) Libellaticos eos 
esse, significare tradunt, qui, cum 
sacrificium offerre publice cogeren- 
tur, se data pecunia redemissent. .. . 
Quibus omnibus exprimere videtur, 
libellatici causam fitisse hujuscemo- 
di, ut, etsi minus quis sacrificium 
diis offerret, tamen aliqua per se vel 
per alium edita professione fidem 
negaret: ne vero, sicut ceteri, tra- 
heretur ignominiose ad aram, id pe- 
cunia ....redimebat. 

26 Albaspin. Observat. 1. 1. c. 21. 
88. 4, 5,6, 7. (ad calc. Optat. pp. 42, 
43-) Duo tamen inter legendum li- 
bellaticorum genera mihi videor de- 
prehendisse, &c.—Cave, Primitive 
Christianity, part 3. ch. 5. p. 384. 
(Ρ. 352.) Besides these libels granted 
by the martyrs, &c.—Suicer. Thes. 
meee, (t. 2. p. 240.) .. » ὦ Paucis 
explicare libet, quinam apud Veteres 
dicantur Jibellatici. Duo eorum 


genera fuisse videntur, &c. 

27 De Lapsis, p. 133. (p. 95.) Nec 
sibi, quo ies aca As eet 
blandiantur, qui, etsi nefandis sacri- 
ficlis manus non contaminaverunt, 
libellis tamen conscientiam pollu- 
erunt. Et illa professio denegantis 
contestatio est Christiani, quod fu- 
erat; abnuentis; fecisse se dixit, 
quicquid alius faciendo commisit.— 
So in the Epistle of the Roman 
Clergy to Cyprian: [Ep. 31. al. 30. ] 
Ρ. 57. (Ρ. 210.) Hoe nos non falso 
dicere superiores nostrz literze pro- 
baverunt, in quibus vobis senten- 
tiam nostram dilucida expositione 
protulimus, adversus eos, qui seip- 
sos infideles illicita nefariorum li- 
bellorum professione prodiderant, 
quando non minus quam si ad ne- 
farias aras accessissent, hoc ipso 
quod contestati fuerant, teneren- 
tur. 


206 


The great crimes, 


juration themselves, but sent either an Heathen friend or 
a servant to sacrifice or abjure in their names, and thereby 
procure them a libel of security from the magistrate, as if 
they had done what the others did for them. And indeed the 
Church so interpreted it, and reckoned these no less criminals 
than the former. The Roman Clergy in their Letter to Cy- 
prian 2° condemn them both alike, saying, ‘ that this latter 
sort, though they were not present at the fact of delivering 
the libel to the magistrate, yet they were in effect present by 
commanding it to be written and presented. For he that com- 
mands a sin to be done, cannot discharge himself of the guilt 
of it; nor can he be innocent of the crime, by whose consent it 
is publicly read in court as done, though he was not actually 
the doer of it. Seeing the whole mystery of faith is summed 
up in confessing the name of Christ, he that seeks by any 
fallacious tricks to excuse himself from such profession does 
plainly deny it: and he who, when edicts and laws are pub- 
lished against the Gospel, would be thought to comply with 
and observe them, does in that very thing obey them, in that 
he would have the world believe that he does obey them.’ The 
Canons of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, also take notice of 
this sort of libellers, and appoint them their punishment 29, 
making this difference between a master who compelled his 
slave to go and sacrifice for him, and the slave who went at 
his command : ‘ the slave was to do one year’s penance, but the 
master is enjoined three years, because he dissembled, and 
because he compelled his fellow-servant to sacrifice: for we are 
all servants of the Lord, with whom is no respect of persons.’ 
Besides these, there was another sort of libellers, who, 


XVI. iv. 


_28 Ubi supr. (p. ead.) Sed etiam 
adversus illos, qui accepta fecissent, 
licet przesentes cum fierent non af- 
fuissent, cum presentiam suam uti- 
que ut sic scriberentur mandando 
fecissent. Non est enim immunis 
a scelere, qui ut fieret imperavit ; 
nec est alienus a crimine, cujus 
consensu, licet non a se admissum 
crimen, tamen publice legitur, &c. 

29 C. 6. ap. Bevereg. t. 2. part I. 
p. 12 Ὁ. (CC. t. 1. Ρ. 957 6.) Τοῖς de 
δούλους Χριστιανοὺς ἀνθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ὑπο- 
βεβληκόσιν, οἱ μὲν δοῦλοι ὡς ἂν ὑπο- 
χείριοι ὄντες καὶ τρόπον τινὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ 
φυλακισθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν δεσποτῶν, κα- 
ταπειληθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ τὸν 


φόβον αὐτῶν εἰς τοῦτο ἐληλυθότες καὶ 
ὀλισθήσαντες. ἐνιαυτῷ τὰ τῆς μετα- 
νοίας ἔργα δείξουσι, μανθάνοντες τοῦ 
λοιποῦ, ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ φοβεῖσθαι αὐτόν.---(Ο. 7. ap. Be- 
vereg. ibid. d. (CC. p. ούο a.) Oi δὲ 
> 47 > ‘ »» » ᾿ 
ἐλεύθεροι, ἐν τρισὶν ἔτεσιν ἐξετασθή- 
σονται ἐν μετανοίᾳ, καὶ ὡς ὑποκρινό- 
μενοι, καὶ ὡς καταναγκάσαντες τοὺς 
id ᾿ ~ a ‘ ΄ 
ὁμοδούλους θῦσαι, ἅτε δὴ παρακού- 
~ 2) 
σαντες τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου τὰ αὐτὰ θέ- 
΄ - ΄ 
λοντος ποιεῖν τοὺς δεσπότας τοῖς δού- 
Ss ae \ > oa a7 
λοις, ἀνιέντας τὴν ἀπειλήν" Eiddéras, 
~ - Γ 
φησὶν, ὅτι καὶ ἡμῶν καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ Κύ- 
ριός ἐστιν ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ προσω- 
ποληψία map αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. 





§ 6, 7. 207 


finding that the fury of the judge was to be taken off by 
a bribe, went to him and told him plainly they were Chris- 
tians and could not sacrifice, and therefore desired him to give 
them a libel of security, for which they would give him a suit- 
able reward. Cyprian, speaking of this sort of libellers, brings 
them in thus apologizing for themselves 2°: ‘I had before both 
read and learnt from the preaching of the bishop, that the 
servant of God ought not to sacrifice to idols, nor to worship 
images; and therefore, that I might not do that which is un- 
lawful, when the opportunity of getting a libel offered itself, 
which yet I would not have accepted had not the occasion 
presented itself, I went to the magistrate, or employed another 
to go in my name, and tell him that I was a Christian, and 
that it was unlawful for me to sacrifice, or come near the altars 
of the devils; that therefore I would give him a reward to 
excuse me from doing that which I could not lawfully do, 
Cyprian does not wholly excuse these, but adds, ‘ that though 
their hands were not polluted with sacrifice, nor their mouths 
with eating things offered to idols, yet their conscience was 
defiled: but forasmuch as they seemed rather to sin out of 
ignorance than maliciousness, he thinks their case a little more 
favourable than those that sacrificed ; and therefore since some 
difference was made even among those that sacrificed, he 
thinks a greater allowance should be made to these, though 
he does not particularly tell us what term of penance was 
imposed upon them.’ 
7. Not much unlike this sort of libellers were they who Of those 

counterfeited madness in times of persecution, to get them- Se 


themselves 
selves excused by this means from being questioned, or called mad, to 

Η t id sacri- 
upon to offer sacrifice. Some of them would go to the very ficing. an” 
altars, and make as if they intended to sacrifice, or subscribe 


the abjuration, but then they evaded the thing by pretending 


idolatry, δ᾽ ὁ. 


30 Ep. 52. [4]. 55.] ad Antonian. alio eunte mandavi: Christianum 


p- 107. (p. 245.) Ego prius legeram 
et episcopo tractante cognoveram, 
non sacrificandum idolis, nec si- 
mulacra servum Dei adorare de- 
bere ; et idcirco ne hoc facerem 
quod non licebat, cum occasio li- 
belli fuisse oblata, quem nec ipsum 
acciperem, nisi ostensa fuisset oc- 
casio, ad magistratum vel veni, vel 


me esse, sacrificare mihi non licere, 
ad aras Diaboli me venire non posse, 
dare me hoc premium, ne quod non 
licet faciam.—Vid. Celerin. Ep. 21. 
ibid. p. 46. (p. 201.) ... Quia [Ete- 
cusa] pro se dona numeravit, ne 
sacrificaret: sed tantum ascendisse 
videtur ad Tria Fata, et inde de- 
scendisse. 


Of contri- 
butors to 
idolatry. Of 
the flami- 
nes, mune- 
rarii, and 
coronali. 
What they 
were and 
how guilty 
of idolatry. 


208 The great crimes, 


to fall into a sort of epileptic fit, which inclined the magistrates 
to excuse them and let them escape, as David by such an arti- 
fice escaped from Achish, [1 Sam. 21, 13—15.] when he in- 
tended to kill him. Now this was looked upon as mere dis- 
simulation and collusion, and only a more artful way of deny- 
ing their religion: and therefore by the Penitential Rules of 
Peter, bishop of Alexandria#!, such, though they neither sacri- 
ficed themselves, nor suborned others to sacrifice for them, 
were subjected to penance for six months, because they in 
some measure denied their religion, and made a show ofcounte- 
nancing idolatry both by their cowardice and dissimulation. 

8. And indeed it was not only the bare commission of 
idolatry that subjected men to ecclesiastical censure; but all 
promoters, encouragers, and compliers with idolatrous rites 
were reputed guilty of idolatry in some degree, and ac- 
cordingly proceeded against as betrayers of their religion. 
Thus in the Council of Eliberis there is a canon®? against 
such Christians as took upon them the office of a flamen or 
Heathen priest ; part of whose office was to exhibit the ordi- 
nary games or shows to the people: and if they did this, 
though they abstained from sacrificing, they were to do 
penance all their lives as encouragers of idolatrous rites, and 
only be admitted to communion at the hour of death, after 
sufficient evidences of a true repentance. Some learned per- 
sons mistake the sense of this canon, understanding the words, 
munus dare, as if they meant giving money to the judge to 
excuse them from sacrificing: which would be the same crime 
as the libellers were guilty of; whereas this canon speaks not 
of such lapsers, but of those who took upon them the office of 


31 C. 5. ap. Bevereg. t. 2. part 1. ἐπεὶ μάλιστα κατὰ πολλὴν εὐλάβειαν 


XVI. iv. 


p- τι ἃ. (CC. t. 1. p. 957 ¢.) Τοῖς δὲ 
καθυποκριναμένοις κατὰ τὸν ἐπιλη- 
΄ ‘ . ‘ > , 
πτευσάμενον Δαβὶδ, ἵνα μὴ ἀποθάνῃ, 
οὐκ ὄντα ἐπίληπτον" καὶ μὴ γυμνῶς 
ἀπογραψαμένοις τὰ πρὸς ἄρνησιν, 
> ‘ , A ‘ 
ἀλλὰ διαπαίξασι κατὰ πολλὴν στε- 
νοχωρίαν, ὡς ἂν παιδία βουλευτικὰ 
ἔμφρονα ἐν παιδίοις ἄφροσι. τὰς τῶν 
» ΄ » A »ἭἍ ς , 
ἐχθρῶν ἐπιβουλὰς, ἤτοι ὡς διελθόντες 
βωμοὺς, ἦτοι ὡς χειρογραφήσαντες, 
ἦτοι ὡς ἀνθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν βαλόντες ἐθνι- 
κοὺς, εἰ καί τισιν αὐτῶν συνεχώρησάν 
τινες τῶν ὁμολογησάντων, ὡς ἤκουσα, 


ἐξέφυγον αὐτόχειρες γενέσθαι τοῦ πυ- 
ρὸς καὶ ἀναθυμιάσεως τῶν ἀκαθάρτων 
δαιμόνων" ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἔλαθεν αὐτοὺς 
ἄγνοιᾳ τοῦ πράξαντος, ὅμως ἑξάμηνος 
αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιθήσεται τῆς ἐν μετανοίᾳ 
ἐπιστροφῆς. 

82 C. 3. (ibid. p. 971 ἃ.) Item fla- 
mines, qui non immolaverint, sed 
munus tantum dederint, eo quod 
se a funestis abstinuerunt sacrificiis, 
placuit in fine eis prastari commu- 
nionem, acta tamen legitima peeni- 
tentia. 


§ 8. 


idolatry, Se. 209 


a flamen, whose business among other things was to give or’ 
exhibit at his own, or else at a public expense, the munera, 
that is, the ordinary games or shows and pastimes to the 
people. For these were called munera 38, as appears from 
the use of the term in the Civil Law: and they that gave 
them were thence termed munerari?, the masters of the games, 
or the entertainers, who kept beasts and men to fight in the 
amphitheatre for the entertainment of the people; as may be 
seen in Tertullian3+, and Seneca35, and Suetonius®®, and others 
who speak according to the propriety of the Latin tongue. 
Now because these games were held chiefly on the Heathen 
festivals and in honour of their gods, and were full of idola- 
trous rites as well as cruelty and impurity, a Christian could 
not exhibit them to the people, without incurring the crime of 
idolatry, at least indirectly, by promoting and encouraging the 
practice of it. And for that reason this canon is so severe 
against those who furnished out these shows at their own 
expense. 

A lower degree of this crime was, when such a flamen or 
priest neither offered sacrifices, nor exhibited the games at his 
own expense, but only wore the crown, which was usual in 
such solemnities: which being a badge of idolatry, for that 
reason, by another canon of that Council 87, two years’ penance, 
as a moderate punishment in comparison of the former, is 


imposed upon them that were so far concerned in it. 


33 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 18. leg. 1. 
(t. 3. p.154-)..- Bestiis primo quo- 
ue munere objiciatur.—Vid. Go- 
thofred. in loc. (ibid. p. 155. col. 
dextr.) Sane qui ad bestias dati, 
depugnaturi cum his inducebantur 
stato spectaculi die; quod munus 
dictum, et vero hac quoque lege 
dicitur, &c.— Martial. de Specta- 
cul. 5. in Amphitheatr. Cesar. Epi- 
gram. 6. (ap. Corp. Poet. Lat. t. 2. 
Ρ. 1169.) 
Prisca fides taceat: nam post tua 
munera, Cesar, 
Hec jam foeminea vidimus acta 
manu. 
34 Apolog. c. 44. (p. 34 d.)%... De 
vestris semper munerarii noxiorum 
greges pascunt. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


But 


35 [Epitom. Controvers. 1. 4. (Ed. 
Paris. cum Not. Varior. ap. Hadrian. 
Perier. 1607. fol. part. 2. p. 239.) 
Seneca Novato, Senece, Mele, filiis 
salutem. Quod munerarii solent fa- 
cere ad expectationem populi deti- 
nendam, nova paria per omnes dies 
dispensant, ut sit quod populum et 
delectet et revocet: &c. En.]} 

36 Vit. Domitian. cap. 10. (p. 333.) 
... Threcem mirmilloni parem, mu- 
nerario imparem. 

37 Vid. C. Eliber. c. 4. (t. 1. p. 
976 ἃ.) Sacerdotes, qui tantum co- 
ronam portant, nec sacrificant, nec 
de suis sumptibus aliquid ad idola 
prestant, placuit post biennium ac- 
cipere communionem, 


Ρ 


210 


The great crimes, 


it may be noted, that Tertullian’s invective against the soldier’s 
crown or garland, in his Book De Corona Militis, has no rela- 
tion to this matter: for the wearing of such a crown seems to 
have had no concern in religion, but to be a mere civil act 
done in honour of the emperors on such days as they gave 


their largesses or donations to the soldiers. 


The laurel was 


only an ensign of victory, and though it was dedicated to 
Apollo, yet that did not make the use of it unlawful; other- 
wise the use of the four elements, and many other trees, and 
plants, and animals had all been unlawful, because, as St. 
Austin 35 shows, they were dedicated to the gods also. There- 
fore learned men*®9 censure Tertullian here, as overstrainmg 
his argument upon this point upon his new principles of 
Montanism, by which he also denied it to be lawful for a 
Christian to fly in time of persecution, or to bear arms in 
defence of the empire‘, contrary to his former judgment in 
his Apology, where he tells the emperor, that. his army was 
full of the disciples of Jesus, and mentions the famous under- 
taking of the Thundering Legion with a great eulogium and 


commendation. 


So that this new severity of his in condemn- 


ing the Christian soldiers for wearing a laurel-crown, must be 
reckoned among those peculiarities which he imbibed after he 
was fled over from the Church to the school of Montanus; 
since we no where find soldiers condemned for this in the 
Catholic Church, much less brought under any discipline or 


penance for the use of it. 


9. But there is another canon in the Council of Eliberis 41, 


38 Ep .154. [al. 47.] ad Publicol. 
(t. 2. p. 111 g.) Sed si illud, quod in 
- agris nascitur, consecratur idolo, 
vel sacrificatur, tunc inter idolothy- 
ta deputandum est..... Hoc et de 
puteo responderim vel fonte, qui in 
templo est, &c. 

39 Baron. an. 201. n. 16. tot. (t. 2. 
p. 281 c.) Et quod ab ecclesia Catho- 
lica semel desciscens, &c.—Du Pin, 
Biblioth. t. 1. p. 95. (t. 1. p. 102.) 
Tertullien semble l’étendre un peu 
trop en quelques rencontres, et 
prendre trop a la rigueur des choses, 
qui se peuvent excuser, comme 
par exemple, de porter les armes 
pour la défense de l’empire, d’orner 


ses maisons de flambeaux et de lau- 
riers en V’honneur des princes, de 
se servir de maniéres de parler usi- 
tées, quoi qu’elles aient quelque 
rapport a l’idolatrie.—Seller, Life of 
Tertullian, (Remarques, &c. p. 221.) 
I would therefore presume, &c, 

40 Vid. Tertull. de Cor. Mil. c. 11. 
(p.117 b.) Etenim ut ipsam causam 
corone militaris aggrediar, puto 
prius conquirendum, an in totum 
Christianis militia conveniat, &c. 

41 (Ὁ, 56. (t.1. p. 976d.) Magistra- 
tum vero uno anno, quo agit duum- 
viratum, prohibendum placuit, ut se 
ab ecclesia cohibeat. 


XVI. iv. 





idolatry, Se. 211 


which orders, ‘that all Christians, who took upon them the duumvirate 

city magistracy or office, called the duumvirate, should be de- Rete 

nied communion for the whole year in which they held the idoiatry, | 
: : SE ar . . and how it 

office, as guilty of some offence against religion.” No crime 15 was pun- 

mentioned, but idolatry is understood: for the grounds and ished. 

reasons of this canon will be easily explained and apprehended 

from the account that is given of this office in the Civil Law; 

where we learn, that the duumviri were the chief city-ma- 

gistrates, otherwise called primates curic, chosen every year, 

for it was but an annual office; and it belonged to them, as it 

did to the famines and the pontifices, or sacerdotes provincia- 

rum, and the pretores and the governors of provinces, or ordi- 

nary judges, to exhibit the spectacula, or the games and shows 

to the people, as Gothofred?? shows from various laws of the 

Theodosian Code. And Tertullian‘? not only observes the 

same, that the city-magistrates were the editors of these 

games, but that the shows themselves were founded in idolatry 

and attended with many idolatrous ceremonies; which he 

makes use of as one argument why a Christian should not fre- 

quent them. And for this reason the Council of Eliberis orders 

all Christians, who took upon them the office of the duwmviri, to 

be kept back from communion during the year they went 

through that office ; because they could not exhibit these shows 

to the people without encouraging and partaking in that idola- 

try which was so closely annexed to them: for, (to quote the 


42 Paratitlon ad Cod. Theod. 1. bus presidibus, &c.—Ibid. c. 12. (c.) 


15. tit.5. de Spectacul. (t. 5. p.348.) 
Edebantur autem spectacula vel a 
magistratibus, 1. Duumviris, &c.— 
Conf. Cod. Theod. 1.12. tit. 1. de 
Decurion. leg. 169. (t. 4. p. 499.) De 
duumvirorum censu Antiochie e- 
recto per prebitionem pc solido- 
rum, ad ludos eo facilius edendos. 
—L. 15. tit. 5. de Spectacul. leg. 1. 
(t. 5. Ρ. 348.) Magistratus et sacer- 
dotiorum editiones, &c. 

43 De Spectacul. c. 11. (p. 78 a.) 
Proinde tituli; Olympia Jovi, que 
sunt Rome Capitolina. Item Her- 
culi Nemza, Neptuno Isthmia, ce- 
teri mortuarii [4]. mortuorum] varii 
agones. Quid ergo mirum, si appa- 
ratus agonum idololatria conspurcat 
de coronis profanis, de sacerdotali- 


Hee muneri [al.muneris] origo, ... 
licet transierit hoc genus editionis 
ab honoribus mortuorum ad hono- 
res viventium, questuras dico et 
magistratus et flaminia et sacerdo- 
tia. Cum tamen nominis dignitas 
idololatrie crimine teneatur, necesse 
est quicquid dignitatis nomine ad- 
ministratur, communicet etiam ma- 
culas ejus, a qua habet causas, &c. 
—Vid. Apolog. c. 38. (p. 30 d.) Al- 
que spectaculis vestris in tantum re- 
nuntiamus, in quantum originibus 
eorum, quas scimus de superstitione 
conceptas, &e.—De Idolol. c.13. (p. 
02 d.) Sic tamen nobis de mansue- 
tudine et clementia Dei blandiamur, 
ut non usque ad idololatrie affini- 
tates necessitatibus largiamur, &c. 


P 2 


212 The great crimes, XVI. iv. 


words of Lactantius‘+,] Ludorum celebrationes Deorum festa 
sunt. 


How actors 10. And for the same reason, all actors and stage-players, 
and stage- a adh BK rere: 
players, and and they who drove the chariots in the public games, and g 


Lego diators, and all who had any concern in the exercise or ma- 
and other 


gamesters, Nagement of these unlawful sports, and all frequenters of them, 
ΕΠ ΡΣ οἱ Were obliged either to quit these practices, or be liable to ex- 
the theatre communication so long as they continued to follow them; not 


and circus, only because a great deal of impurity and cruelty was commit- 


were charg- . . : 
ed with; ted in them, but also because they contributed to the main- 
rota tenance of idolatry, which was an appendage of them. All 
ed for it. 


these were comprised in the pomp and service of the Deyil, 
which every Christian had renounced at his baptism; and 
therefore when any one returned to them, he was charged as a 
renouncer of his baptismal covenant, and thereupon discarded, 
as an apostate and relapser, from Christian communion. Thus 
Cyprian being consulted by Eucratius, whether a stage-player 
might communicate, who continued to follow that dishonoura- 
ble trade, he answers 15, ‘that it was neither agreeable to the 
majesty of God, nor the discipline of the Gospel, that the mo- 
desty and honour of the Church should be defiled with so base 
and infamous a contagion.’ The Council of Eliberis*¢ allows 
stage-players to be baptized only upon condition that they re- 
nounced their arts, and entirely bid adieu to them: and if after 
baptism they returned to them again, they were to be cast out 
of the Church. The first Council of Arles has a like decree47, 
‘that all public actors belonging to the theatre shall be denied 
communion so long as they continue to act.’ And the third 
Council of Carthage 45 supposes the sentence of excommunica- 
tion to pass upon all such, when it says, ‘that actors and stage- 
players, and all apostates of that kind, shall not be denied 


44 Institut. 1.6. c. 20. (t.1. p. ulterius non revertantur. Quod si 


494.) Consult the whole chapter. 

45 Ep. 61. [al. 2.] p. 3. (p. 171.) 
Puto nec majestati divine nec evan- 
gelice discipline congruere, ut pu- 
dor et honor ecclesize tam turpi et 
infami contagione foedetur. 

46 C. 62. (t. 1. p.g77 Ὁ.) Si pan- 
tomimi [8]. auriga et pantomimus] 
credere voluerint, placuit ut prius 
artibus [al. actibus] suis renuntient, 
et tune demum suscipiantur, ita ut 


facere contra interdictum tentave- 
rint, projiciantur ab ecclesia. 

47 C. 5. (ibid. p. 1427 6.) De the- 
atricis, et ipsos placuit, quamdiu 
agunt, a communione separari. 

48 C. 35. (t.2. Ρ. 1172 b.) Ut see- 
nicis atque histrionibus, czterisque 
hujusmodi personis, vel apostaticis, 
conversis vel reversis ad Dominum, 
gratia vel reconciliatio non negetur. 


§ 10, τί. 


idolatry, δ᾽ 6. 213 


pardon and reconciliation, if they return unto the Lord.’ This 
implies that they were gone astray, and cast out of the Church 
for their crimes, since they needed pardon and reconciliation 
to take off their censure and restore them. The first Council 
of Arles+9 determines the same in the case of those who drove 
the chariots in the public games, that so long as they continued 
in that employment they should be denied communion. Tertul- 
lian 5° and others*! say expressly, that these arts were part of 
those pomps and worship of Satan which men renounced in 
baptism. And it appears from a rule in the Constitutions®*2, 
‘that no charioteer, or gladiator, or racer, or curator of the 
public games, or practiser in the Olympic games, or minstrel, 
or harper, or dancer, was to be admitted to baptism, unless 
they immediately quitted these unlawful callings.’ And it was 
no less a crime to frequent the theatre, and be spectators of 
these idolatrous practices, as is noted in the same rule of the 
Constitutions°3. Therefore as an obstinate adherence to these 
things debarred catechumens from baptism, so it likewise ex- 
cluded baptized persons or believers from the privilege of com- 


munion. 


11. Another way of contributing to the practice of idolatry, 
was the art or trade of making idols for the worshippers of 


49 C. 4. (t.1. p.1427d.) De agi- 
tatoribus, qui fideles sunt, placuit 
eos, quamndiu agitant, a communione 
separari. 

Ὁ De Spectacul. c. 4. (p.74.c.) Cum 
aquam ingressi Christianam fidem 
in legis sue verba profitemur, re- 
nuntiasse nos Diabolo et pompe et 
angelis ejus ore nostro contestamur. 
Quid erit summum atque preci- 
puum, in quo Diabolus et pompe et 
angeli ejus censeantur, quam ‘idolo- 
latria? ex qua omnis immundus et 
nequam spiritus, ut ita dixerim, quia 
nec diutius de hoc. Igitur, si ex 
idololatria universam spectaculorum 
paraturam constare constiterit, in- 
dubitate prejudicatum erit etiam ad 
spectacula pertinere renuntiationis 
nostre testimonium in lavacro, que 
Diabolo et pompe et angelis ejus 
sint mancipata, scilicet per idolola- 
triam.—De Cor. Mil. c. 13. (p. 109 
Ὁ.) Universas, ut arbitror, causas 
enumeravimus; nec ulla nobiscum 


est: omnes alienz, profane, illicita, 
semel jam in sacramenti testatione 
ejerate. Hec enim erant pompe 
Diaboli et angelorum ejus, officia 
seeculi, honores, solemnitates, &c. 

51 Salvian. de Gubernat. 1. 6. ἢ. 6. 
p-197. (p. 121.) Ergo spectacula et 
pompe etiam juxta nostram profes- 
sionem opera sunt Diaboli. Quo- 
modo, O Christiane, spectacula post 
baptismum sequeris ὃ &c.—Cyril. Hi- 
erosol. Catech. [19.] Mystag. 1. n.4. 
See before, Ὁ. 11. ch. 7. 8. 3. V. 4. p. 
122. Wt. pc: 

52 L. 8. c. 32. (Cotel. v. τ. p.412.) 
Τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς ἐάν τις προσείη ἀνὴρ, 
ἢ γυνὴ, ἢ ἡνίοχος, ἢ μονόμαχος, ἢ 
σταδιοδρόμος, ἢ λουδεμπιστὴς, ἢ Ὃ- 
λυμπικὸς, ἢ χοραύλης, ἢ κιθαριστὴς, ἢ 
λυριστὴς, ἢ ὁ τὴν ὄρχησιν ἐπιδεικνύ- 
μενος, ἢ κάπηλος" ἢ παυσάσθωσαν, ἢ 
ἀποβαλλέσθωσαν. 

53 Tbid. (p. 414.) Θεατρομανίᾳ εἴ 
τις πρόσκειται, «ἢ παυσάσθω, ἢ ἀπο- 


βαλλέσθω. 


Tdol- 
makers; 
their crime 


214 XVL iv. 


The great crimes, 


andpunish- them. 
ment. 


Many Christians, who abhorred the worship of idols 
themselves, made no scruple to make idols for others, and live 
by this calling; which was reputed a very scandalous profes- 
sion, tending indirectly and consequentially to the upholding 
and promoting of idolatry. For which reason, no man profes- 
sing this art could be admitted to baptism, unless he promised 
to renounce it, as we learn from the Author of the Constitu- 
tions*!: and what denied a man one sacrament, would also deny 
him the other. Tertullian*’ calls such, ‘proctors and purveyors 
for idolatry,’ inveighing against this and some other trades of 
the like nature. ‘ When you help,’ says he, ‘ to furnish out the 
pomp, the priesthood, the sacrifices of idols, what can you be 
called but procurers for idols? All heinous sins, for the great- 
ness of the danger attending them, ought to make us extremely’ 
cautious to keep at a distance not only from them, but from all 
things that minister to the practice of them. For though a 
crime be committed by others, it is all one if I am instrumental 
to the commission of it. By the same reason that I am forbid- 
den to do it, I ought to take care that it be not done by my 
assistance. I must not be a necessary aid to another in domg 
that which I may not lawfully do myself.’ Upon these grounds 
he concludes the trade of making idols to be unlawful, as well 
as the worship of them. And so did Clemens Alexandrinus®*®, 
and Justin Martyr®7 before him. Tertullian®® objects it as a 
great crime to Hermogenes, that he followed the trade of 
painting images. 


54 [bid. (p.412.) Εἰδωλοποιὸς προσ- 
‘ a» ΄ bal > , 
tov, ἢ παυσάσθω. ἢ ἀποβαλλέσθω. 

55 De Idolol. c. 11. (Ρ.91 c.) Cum 
pompe, cum sacerdotia,cum sacrificia 
idolorum .. . instruuntur, quid aliud 
quam procurator idolorum demon- 
straris? Nemo contendat, posse hoc 
modo omnibus negotiationibus con- 
troversiam fieri. Graviora delicta 

uzeque, pro magnitudine periculi, 
ἐπα τα extendunt observationis, 
ut non ab iis [al. his] tantum absce- 
damus, sed ab iis per que fiunt. 
Licet enim ab aliis fiat, non interest, 
si per me. In nullo necessarius esse 
debeo alii, cum facit quod mihi non 
licet. Ex hoc, quod vetor facere,iin- 
telligere debeo curandum mihi esse, 


ne fiat per me. 

56 Protreptic. ad Gent. (p. 54- 8.) 
Καὶ yap δὴ καὶ amnyopeverat ἡμῖν 
ἀναφανδὸν, ἀπατηλὸν ὁρίζεσθαι τέχ- 
νην" Ov yap ποιήσεις, φησὶν ὁ Τρο- 
φήτης, παντὸς ὁμοίωμα, ὅσα ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω. 

57 Dialog. cum ‘Tryph. (p- 321 e.) 
Εἴπατε γάρ μοι, οὐχὶ Θεὸς ἢ ἦν ὁ ἐντει- 
λάμενος διὰ Μωσέως, “μήτε εἰκόνα, 
μήτε ὁμοίωμα, μήτε τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ 
ἄνω, μήτε τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ὅλως ποιῆσαι, 
κα το ὰς 

58 Cont. Hermogen. 6. 1. (p. 233 b.) 

. Pingit illicite [al. licite], nubit 
assidue : legem Dei in libidinem de- 
fendit, in artem contemnit bis falsa- 
rius et cauterio et stilo, 


§ 11. 


idolatry, δ᾽ 6. 915 

But that which is most material to our purpose here is his 
observation, which he makes in his Book of Idolatry 59, upon 
the punishment due to such as made a livelihood of this un- 
lawful calling, that any one who followed it ought not to have 
access to the house of God. For it was contrary © to the faith 
which they had professed in baptism. ‘How have we re- 
nounced the Devil and his angels, if we still continue to make 
them? What divorce have we made from them with whom we 
not only continue to live but live upon them? What disagree- 
ment is there between us and them to whom we are obliged 
for our maintenance and livelihood? Can you deny that with 
your tongue which you confess with your hands? Can you 
destroy that in words which you raise up in your actions,— 
preach one God and make so many,—preach the true God and 
make false ones? But, say you, I only make them, I do not 
worship them. As if the same reason which forbids you to 
worship them did not also forbid you to make them. Yea, 
you worship them in doing that which causes them to be wor- 
shipped. And you worship them not with the spirit of any 
vile nidor (or smell) of a sacrifice, but with your own spirit: 
not with the life of a sheep bestowed on them, but with your 
own soul. To them you sacrifice your own ingenuity, to them 
you offer your labour, to them you burn your prudence and 
understanding. You are more than a priest to them, since by 
your means it is that they have a priest. Your diligence is 
their deity. Do you then deny that you worship that to 


59 De Idolol. c.5. (p.87¢.)... colere non audeat, nisi ob quam et 


Hujusmodi artificum, quos nun- 
quam in domum Dei admitti oportet, 
sl τος eam disciplinam norit. 

Ibid. c. 6. (p. 88 b.) Quomodo 
enim renuntiavimus Diabolo et an- 
gelis ejus, si eos facimus? Quod 
repudium diximus iis, non dico cum 

uibus, sed de quibus vivimus? 
rsa discordiam suscepimus in 
eos, quibus exhibitionis nostre gra- 
tia obligati sumus? Potes lingua ne- 
gasse, quod manu confiteris? Verbo 
destruere, quod facto struis? Unum 
Deum predicare, qui tantos efficis ? 
Verum Deum predicare, qui falsos 
facis? Facio, ait quidam, sed non 
colo. Quasi ob aliquam causam 


facere non debeat; scilicet ob Dei 
offensam utrobique. Immo tu colis, 
qui facis ut coli possint. Colis au- 
tem non spiritu vilissimi nidoris ali- 
cujus, sed tuo proprio: nec anima 
pecudis impensa, sed anima tua. 
Illis ingenium tuum immolas, illis 
sudorem tuum libas, illis prudentiam 
tuam accendis. Plus es illis quam 
sacerdos, cum per te habeant sacer- 
dotem. Diligentia tua numen fal. 
nomen] illorum est. Negas te quod 
facis colere? Sed illi non negant, 
quibus hanc saginatiorem, et aura- 
tiorem, et majorem hostiam cedis, 
salutem tuam. 


The idola- 
try of build- 
ing or, 
adorning 
Heathen 
altars and 
temples. ~ 


216 The great crimes, 


which you give its very being and existence? But they them- 
selves do not deny it to whom you offer a fatter, and more 
costly, and greater sacrifice, even your own salvation.’ Thus 
far Tertullian, who notwithstanding seems to complain that 
there was a great remissness in the exercise of discipline upon 
such offenders; for he immediately adds®!, ‘One might de- 
claim all the day long with a zeal of faith upon this point, and 
bewail such Christians as come straight from their idols into 
the church, from the shop of the adversary into the house of 
God, and there lift up to God the Father those very hands 
which are the mothers (or makers) of idols; adoring God in the 
church with those hands, which without doors are themselves 
adored in the idols which they have made against God; and 
taking the body of the Lord into those hands wherewith they 
have prepared and given bodies to the devils. Nor is this all. 
It were but a small thing to defile that body which they receive 
from the hands of others, but those very hands deliver it to 
others which have first defiled it. For the makers of idols are 
sometimes chosen into the holy orders of the Church. O 
monstrous wickedness! The Jews once laid hands upon 
Christ, but these every day treat his body despitefully. O 
hands that ought to be cut off? If Tertullian here does not 
make too severe an invective, and calumniate the Church, it 
must be owned there was some neglect in the exercise of 
discipline, to suffer such offenders not only to communicate, 
but take orders in the Church, who by the rules of discipline 
ought not to communicate in the Christian body in any quality 
whatsoever. 

12. Tertullian in the same book brings the charge of idolatry 
against all other artificers who contributed toward the worship 
of idols, either by erecting altars, or building temples, or 
making shrines, or beautifying and adorning the idols, or any 


61 Ibid. c.7. (p.88 ἃ.) Tota die Nec hoc sufficit. Parum sit, si ab 


XVI. iv. 


ad hance partem zelus fidei perorabit, 
ingemens Christianum ab idolis in 
ecclesiam venire; de adversarii offi- 
cina in domum Dei; attollere ad 
Deum Patrem manus matres idolo- 
rum: his manibus adorare, que 
foris adversus Deum adorantur : eas 
manus admovere corpori Domini, 
que dzeemoniis corpora conferunt. 


aliis manibus accipiant, quod conta- 
minant, sed etiam ipsi tradunt aliis, 
quod contaminaverunt. Alleguntur 
in ordinem ecclesiasticum artifices 
idolorum. Proh scelus! Semel Ju- 
dei Christo manus intulerunt; isti 
quotidie corpus ejus Jacessunt. O 
manus precidende ! 


idolatry, Se. 217 


thing belonging to them, For® it was the same thing, whether 
a man made an idol or only adorned it. He that built a temple 
or erected an altar to an idol, or overlaid it with gold, did 
rather more toward its worship than he that made it: for the 
one only gave it an effigies, the other gave it authority ; pro- 
curing veneration to be paid to it asa god. Upon this score 
all who thus contributed toward the worship of idols, though 
they did not actually sacrifice to them, were ranked in the 
same class with idolaters, and accordingly subjected to the 
censures of the Church. Which appears from that famous 
remonstrance which St. Ambrose made to the Emperor Valen- 
tinian ©, when he was solicited by Symmachus the Heathen to 
restore the altar of Victory in the Capitol. He told him 
plainly, that if he did this no bishop would receive him to 
communion, but every one courageously repel him, and be 
ready to give hima good reason for their opposition. ‘They 
will tell you,’ says he, ‘ that the Church desires not your gifts, 
because you have adorned the temples of the Heathen with 
your gifts: the altar of Christ refuses your oblations, because 
you have erected an altar to the idol-gods.’ The case of 
Marcus Arethusius is famous in story, who chose rather to 
suffer death under Julian than rebuild a temple which he had 
demolished by law in the time of Constantius, as is related at 
large by Gregory Nazianzen® and Sozomen®. And Theo- 
doret® highly commends Abdas, a Persian bishop, for that 


62 Thid. c. 8. (p.89 a.) Nec enim 
differt, an extruas, vel exornes: si 
templum, si aram, si ediculam ejus 


> a 

τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς σεμνότατον καὶ πολυ- 

, 4 ~ > ‘ ‘ 

τελέστατον ναὸν καθεῖλεν. ᾿Επεὶ δὲ 
΄, > ‘ 

μετέπεσεν eis ᾿Ιουλιανὸν ἡ ἀρχὴ, κεκι- 


instruxeris, si bracteam expresseris 
aut insignia, aut etiam domum fabri- 
caveris. Major est ejusmodi opera, 
que non effigiem confert, sed auc- 
toritatem. 

63 See before, ch. 3. s.5. p. 140. 
n. 45. 

64 [Orat. 3.] Invect. 1. in Julian. 
(t. 1. p. 90 a.) Ἕως μὲν yap Bapura- 
την ποιησάμενοι τοῦ ναοῦ τὴν ἀποτί- 
μῆσιν τὰ πᾶν ἤτουν χρυσίον, ἢ αὐ- 
τόν γε ἀναδείμασθαι τὸν νεὼν ἐκέλευον" 
mit. A. 

6 L.s5. c.g. (v.2. p.194. 34.) 
Προθυμότερον ἢ κατὰ πειθὼ, Κων- 
σταντίου βασιλεύσαντος, τοὺς “Ελλη- 
νιστὰς εἰς Χριστιανισμὸν ἐπανῆγε, καὶ 


νημένον em αὐτὸν τὸν δῆμον ὁρῶν, 
ἅμα δὲ καὶ κατὰ πρόσταγμα βασιλέως 
καταδικασθεὶς, ἢ τὴν ἀποτίμησιν τοῦ 
ναοῦ ἐκτίσαι, ἢ τοῦτον ἀνοικοδομῆσαι" 
λογισάμενος ὡς ἀδύνατον ἑκάτερον, 
Χριστιανῷ δὲ ἄλλως ἀθέμιτον τὸ δεύ- 
τερον, μῆτι ye δὴ ἱερεῖ, ἔφυγε τὰ 
πρῶτα᾽ μαθὼν δὲ dv αὐτὸν κινδυνεύειν 
πολλοὺς, ἑλκυσμάτων τὲ καὶ δικαστη- 
ρίων καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις πειρᾶσθαι 
δεινῶν, ἐπανῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς φυγῆς, καὶ 
ἐθελοντὴς ὅ, τι βούλοιντο αὐτὸν δρᾷν, 
τῷ πλήθει προσήγαγεν.--- Conf. Theo- 
doret. 1. 3. ¢. 7. Cv. 3. p. 128. 57.) 
Τὸ δέ ye Μάρκου τοῦ ᾿Αρεθουσίων 
ἐπισκόπου δρᾶμα, κ.τ.λ. 


Ὁ Ὁ, αν c. 39. (v. 3: 30 δ) 


Of mer- 
chants sell- 
ing frank- 
incense to 
the idol- 
temples, 
and the 
buyers and 
sellers of 
the public 
victims. 


ἔΑβδας Tis ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, πολλοῖς κοσ- 


218 The great crimes, 


haying demolished a pyreum, a temple where the Persians 
worshipped fire as a god, though he did this without any 
legal authority, yet he rather chose to suffer death than 
rebuild it; because it was the same thing to build a temple 
to the idol as to worship it. And St. Chrysostom®7 says, 
it was a very common thing in the time of Julian to call 
upon all those, who had been concerned in demolishing temples 
in the preceding reigns of Constantine and Constantius, and 
prosecute them to death, because they refused to rebuild 
them. 

13. Among other promoters and encouragers of idolatry 
they reckoned all merchants selling frankincense to the idol- 
temples, and all who made a trade of buying and selling the 
public victims. Tertullian styles all these, procuratores idolo- 
latrie, purveyors for idolatry. And he expressly says of 
those who bought and sold the public victims®, ‘that no 
Church would receive them to baptism without obliging them 
to renounce that unlawful profession, nor suffer them to con- 
tinue in her communion if they were already of the number of 
the faithful.’ And hence he argues®? more strongly against 
the thurarii, as he terms those who made a livelihood of 
selling frankincense to the temples, which he reckons the 
worse of the two: ‘ With what face can the Christian seller of 


τοῦ προσκυνῆσαι τὸ πῦρ τὸ [τὸ] τέ- 
μενος δείμασθαι. 

67 Hom. 40. in Juventin. et 
Maxim. t. 1. p. 548. (t. 2. p.580a.) 


΄ “ - - 
μούμενος εἴδεσιν ἀρετῆς" οὗτος οὐκ εἰς 
΄ - , 2 ρι 
δέον τῷ ζήλῳ χρησάμενος πυρεῖον 
κατέλυσε' πυρεῖα δὲ καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι 


XVI. iv. 


*ABdav" 


TOU πυρὸς τοὺς νεώς, θεὸν yap τὸ πῦρ 
ὑπειλήφασι. Τοῦτο μαθὼν παρὰ τῶν 
μάγων ὁ βασιλεὺς μετεστείλατο τὸν 
καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἠπίως τὸ 
πραχθὲν ἠτιάσατο, καὶ τὸ πυρεῖον 
οἰκοδομῆσαι προσέταξεν" ἐκείνου δὲ 
ἀντιλέγοντος, καὶ τοῦτο δράσειν 7 ἥκιστα 
φάσκοντος, πάσας καταλύσειν τὰς ἐκ- 
κλησίας ἠπείλησε. Καὶ μέντοι καὶ 
τέλος ἐπέθηκεν οἷς ἠπείλησε" πρότε- 
ρον γὰρ τὸν θεῖον ἄνδρα ἐκεῖνον ἀναι- 
ρεθῆναι κελεύσας καταλυθῆναι τὰς ἐκ- 
κλησίας προσέταξεν. Ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν 
μὲν τοῦ πυρείου κατάλυσιν οὐκ εἰς 
καιρὸν γεγενῆσθαι φημί"... τὸ δὲ τὸν 
καταλυθέντα μὴ ἀνοικοδομῆσαι νεὼν, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν σφαγὴν ἑλέσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ 
τοῦτο δρᾶσαι, κομιδῇ θαυμάζω, καὶ 
στεφάνων τιμῶμαι" ἶσον γάρ μοι δοκεῖ 


«᾿Αλλὰ εἴ τις ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν 
χρόνοις, ἡνίκα βασιλεῖς ἢ ἦσαν εὐσεβεῖς, 
ἢ βωμοὺς καταλύσας, ἢ ναοὺς κατα- 
σκάψας, ἢ ἢ “ἀναθήματα λαβὼν, ἢ ἢ ἀλλ᾽ 
ὁτιοῦν τοιοῦτον ἐργασάμενος, εἰς δικα- 
στήριον εἵλκετο καὶ ἐσφάζετο, κ. τ. A. 

63 De Idolol. c.11. (p.g2 a.) Si 
publicarum victimarum redemptor 
ad fidem accedat, permittes ei in eo 
negotio permanere? Aut si jam fi- 
delis id agere susceperit, retinendum 
in ecclesia putabis? Non opinor. 

69 Ibid. c. 11. (p. 92 a.) Quo ore 
Christianus thurarius, si per templa 
transibit, fumantes aras despuet, et 
exsufflabit, quibus ipse prospexit ὃ 
Qua constantia exorcizabit alumnos 
suos, quibus domum suam cellariam 
preestat ? 


§ 13, 14. idolatry, Sc. 219 


frankincense, if he chance to go through a temple, spit at the 
smoking altars, and show his detestation of those idols for 
which he himself has been the purveyor? With what heart or 
courage can he pretend to exorcize those devils to whom he 
has been a foster-father, and made his house a shop to furnish 
“materials for their service?’ Hence upon the whole matter he 
concludes7°, ‘that no art, profession, business, or trade, could 
be wholly free from the imputation of idolatry, which was in- 
strumental and subservient either in making of idols, or fur- 
nishing out what was necessary to the support of their worship 
and service.’ 

14. The case of eating things offered to idols is resolved by hag: 
the Apostle. It was never lawful to do it in an idol-temple, ees 
because that was to partake of the sacrifice as a sacrifice, and pea i 
to communicate with devils; which was an hardening of the it stood 
Gentiles, and a scandal to the Church of God. The Nicolaitans rice 
are condemned for this in Scripture, and the practice of the latry. 
Basilidians and Valentinians by writers7! of the following ages. 

The Acts of Lucian the Martyr 7? tell us, he chose rather to 
die with hunger than to eat things offered to idols, when his 
persecutors would allow him no other sustenance in prison. 
And Baronius gives another such instance in the people of 
Constantinople 78, who, when Julian had ordered all the meat 
in the shambles to be polluted with idolatrous lustrations, 


Of eating 


70 Ibid. (b.).... Nulla ars, nulla 
professio, nulla negotiatio, que quid 
aut instruendis aut formandis idolis 
administrat, carere poterit titulo ido- 
lolatriz : nisi si aliud omnino inter- 
pretemur idololatriam, quam famu- 
latum idolorum colendorum. 

71 Agrippa Castor, ap. Euseb. 1. 4. 
c. 7. (v. 1. p. 148. 8.) ....*Qv εἰς 
ἡμᾶς κατῆλθεν ἐν τοῖς τότε γνωριμω- 
τάτου συγγραφέως ᾿Αγρίππα Κάστο- 
ρος ἱκανώτατος κατὰ Βασιλείδου ἔλεγ- 
χος, τὴν δεινότητα τῆς τἀνδρὸς ἀπο- 
καλύπτων γοητείας"... .. διδάσκειν τε, 
ἀδιαφορεῖν εἰδωλοθύτων ἀπογευομέ- 
νους, καὶ ἐξομνυμένους ἀπαραφυλακ- 
τῶς τὴν πίστιν κατὰ τοὺς τῶν διωγμῶν 
xatpovs.—Ireneus, |. 1. 6. I. n. 12. 
(p. 30. 18.) Εἰδωλόθυτα ἀδιαφόρως 
ἐσθίουσι, μηδὲ μολύνεσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ἡγούμενοι. 

72 Ap. Baron. an. 311. ἢ. 6. (t. 3. 


p.56e.) Eum etiam arcebant ab 
omni cibo, nisi vellet vesci iis, que 
ab ipsis sacrificabantur: ea enim 
affatim porrigebant. Ille autem ma- 
luisset subire mortes vel innumera- 
biles, et lubentius manens jejunus, 
paulatim a fame esset consumptus, 
quam vel illorum solum passus esset 
conspectum. 

73 An. 362. [n. 43.] p. 24- (t. 4. 
(p. 24 d.) Cuncta cibaria, que ve- 
num publice in foris exponi sole- 
rent, sacrificiis diis immolatis infecit 
ac polluit, ut sic illi omnes cibis co- 
gerentur vesci immolatitiis, nisi fame 
confici penitus vellent. Cum oracu- 
lo Theodori martyris, quonam modo 
consulendum esset fidelibus fame 
periclitantibus, fuit divinitus demon- 
stratum, nempe ut tunc, loco panis, 
cocto omnes frumento uterentur in 
cibum. 


Whether a 
Christian 
out of cu- 
riosity 
might be 
present at 
an idol-sa- 
crifice, not 


220 | The great crimes, 


freely abstained from it, and used boiled corn instead of bread ; 
so defeating the tyrant’s malicious intention. Not that it had 
been any idolatry to have eaten such meat in such a case: for 
the Apostle allows it, where it may be done without either 
communicating with the idols, or giving scandal to the weak : 
“Whatever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no questions 
for conscience’ sake :” [1 Cor. 10, 25.] and, upon this warrant 
of the Apostle, Theodoret 74 justifies the people of Antioch in 
another such case. For Julian made use of the same devilish 
stratagem to ensnare them, polluting all the fountains of An- 
tioch and Daphne, and all the meat in the shambles with his 
idolatrous rites, and all the bread and fruits of the earth and 
herbs, that the Christians might have nothing to eat but what 
was offered in sacrifice to idols. Which is also noted by Chry- 
sostom 75, and others, who speak of the diabolical wiles of 
Julian. But in this case the Christians made no scruple of 
eating any thing, notwithstanding the policy of their adver- 
sary, as knowing that the good creatures of God could not be 
defiled by any such wicked contrivances, so long as they did 
not consent to them, or communicate in them: ‘“ For the earth 
is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof,” and what was “ sancti- 
fied to them by the word of God and prayer,” could not be un- 
sanctified or polluted by any profane abuses. [See 1 Cor. 10, 
26 and 28, with 1 Tim. 4, 5.| 

15. But where there was any real communication with ido- 
latry, or any just ground for a suspicion of it, it was at no 
hand allowable to give the least countenance to it, or any 
umbrage to surmise an approbation of it. For this reason the 
Council of Eliberis7® forbids any Christian to go to the Capitol, 


74. 6. Ὁ: 15. (v. 3: P- 184: 42.) θόμενοι νόμῳ Πᾶν γάρ, φησι, τὸ ἐν 
Πρῶτον μὴν γὰρ τὰς ἐν τῷ ἄστει καὶ μακέλλῳ πωλούμενον ἐσθίετε, μηδὲν 
τὰς ἐν Δάφνῃ πηγὰς ταῖς μυσαραῖς ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν. 


XVI. iv. 


θυσίαις ἐμόλυνεν, ἵ ἵν ἕκαστος ἀπολαύ- 
@v τοῦ νάματος μεταλαγχάνῃ τοῦ μυ- 
σους" ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἀγο- 
ρὰν προκείμενα τοῦ μιάσματος ἐνεπίμ- 
ma’ περιερραίνοντο γὰρ καὶ ἄρτοι, 
καὶ κρέα, καὶ ὀπῶραι, καὶ λάχανα, καὶ 
ὅσα ἄλλα ἐδώδιμα. Ταῦτα ὁρῶντες, 
οἱ τῆς τοῦ σεσωκότος προσηγορίας 
τετυχηκότες, ἔστενον μὲν καὶ ὠλοφύ- 
ροντο βδελυττόμενοι τὰ γινόμενα" με- 
τελάμβανον δὲ ὅμως, ἀποστολικῷ πει- 


75 Hom. 4. de Laudibus Pauli, 
t. 5. Pp. 593: (t. 2. Ρ. 493 a.) Πάλιν 
ai πηγαὶ αἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, αἱ νικῶσαι τῷ 
ῥεύματι τοὺς ποταμοὺς, ἀθρόον. ἔφυγον 
καὶ ἀπεπήδησαν, μηδέποτε, τοῦτο πα- 
θοῦσαι πρότερον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε θυσίαις 
καὶ σπονδαῖς τὸ χωρίον ἐμόλυνεν ὁ 
βασιλεύς. 

76 Co 8g. (t. 1. pairs Prohi- 
bendum ne quis Christianus, ut 
Gentilis ad idolum Capitolii causa 


»᾿. 


idolatry, §c. 221 


joining in 


or idol-temple, so much as only out of curiosity to see the sacri- 
the service. 


fice offered, under the penalty of ten years’ penance imposed 
upon them. Albaspiny 77 rightly observes, that though there 
be a little obscurity in the original wording of the canon, yet 
it must needs intend to prohibit the going to see the sacrifice : 
for otherwise, if they went to sacrifice, not only a ten years’ 
penance, but a penance for their whole lives was imposed upon 
them by the two first canons of this Council. So that the plain 
sense of the canon must be, that if, as a Heathen went to sacri- 
fice, so a Christian went only to see the sacrifice, he should be 
held guilty of the same crime, and do ten years’ penance for it. 
Yet this was to be understood if he had no other call but 
curiosity to carry him thither: for if by any necessary office 
or duty of his station he went thither, this was no crime: as if 
he was of the prince’s guard, and only went to attend his 
sovereign, he was guiltless, because he went not to see the 
sacrifice, but to do his duty. Thus Theodoret7’ says, Valen- 
tinian, when he was a tribune and captain of the guard to 
Julian, attended his master to the temple of Fortune: but 
when the door-keepers according to custom sprinkled their 
lustral or holy water upon those that went in, and a drop of it 


sacrificandi, ascendat et videat: quod 
si fecerit, pari crimine teneatur. Si 
fuerit fidelis post decem annos acta 
peenitentia recipiatur. 

77 In loc. (CC. ibid. p. 1003 e.) 
Arbitror ita legendum esse causa 
sacrificii : subintellige videndi: nam 
si animo sacrificandi interfuissent, 
atrociori supplicio afficerentur, ne- 
que in morte iis ad communionem 
aspirare liceret. Quod si fuerit [leg. 
fecerit] Si ad Capitolium ascende- 
rit ut sacrificio interesset, neque ta- 
men illud aspicere, aut intueri, ei 
licuerit, pari pcena_ supplicioque 
mulctetur, atque illud si oculis usur- 
passet, cum ejus voluntas fuerit, ut 
videret: neque vero sensus senten- 
tiaque ita perspicua manifestaque, 
si de iis sermonem fieri dicamus, 
qui sacrificandi causa eo pergerent, 
qui tamen non sacrificarent, quique 
tantum id a se visum esse et specta- 
tum letarentur, quia nec in morte 
communione erant donandi, qui sa- 
erificaverant, ut ex primo canone 


constat. 

78.1... 3. 0:26x (¥e.9s Ps IQb vias 
Οὐαλεντινιανὸς ἐκεῖνος, ὁ μικρὸν ὕστε- 
ρον βασιλεύσας, χιλίαρχος δὲ ἦν τη- 
νικαῦτα τῶν περὶ τὰ βασίλεια τεταγ- 
μένων λογχοφόρων ἡγούμενος, ὃν εἶχεν 
ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας οὐκ ἀπέκρυψε ζῆ- 
λον ὁ μὴν γὰρ ἐμβρόντητος ἐκεῖνος 
εἰς τὸ τῆς Τύχης τέμενος εἰσήει χο- 
ρεύων" ἑκατέρωθεν τῶν θυρῶν εἱστή- 
κεισαν νηωκύόροι περιρραντηρίοις τοὺς 
εἰσιόντας προκαθαίροντες, ὡς ἐνόμιζον. 
᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἡγούμενος 
τῇ χλανίδι ῥανίδα πελάσασαν εἶδεν 
Οὐαλεντινιανὸς, ὁ βασιλείας ἑκατέρας 
τούτου χάριν τετυχηκὼς, πὺξ ἔπαισε 
τὸν νεωκόρον, μεμολύνθαι φήσας, οὐ 
κεκαθάρθαι. Θεασάμενος δὲ τὸ γεγο- 
νὸς ὁ ἐξάγιστος εἰς φρούριον αὐτὸν 
παρὰ τὴν ἔρημον κείμενον ἐξέπεμψεν, 
αὐτόθι διάγειν προστεταχώς" ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐκεῖνος μὴν. ἐνιαυτοῦ καὶ μηνῶν διελη- 
λυθότων ὀλίγων, μισθὸν τῆς ὁμολο- 
γίας τὴν βασιλείαν édeEaro.— Vid. 
Sozomen. 1.6. ο. 6. (v. 2. p. 226. 2.) 
Λέγεται yap, k.T.X. 


222 The great crimes, 


fell upon his coat, he gave the man a blow upon the face, 
telling him he did not think himself purified but profaned. 
And by this act, says Theodoret, he merited two kingdoms, 
both an earthly and an heavenly. For Julian immediately 
banished him for the fact, and confined him to a castle in the 
desert : but before a year and a few months were past, this 
noble confessor was rewarded with the imperial crown and the 
dignity of the Roman empire. 

By this it appears they put a great difference between going 
to a temple out of mere impertinency and curiosity to see the 
idolatrous rites and sacrifices, and going thither only upon the 
necessary obligations of their duty and function. And Ter- 
tullian 79, who is as severe as any in this matter, owns the rea- 
sonableness of this distinction. ‘It were to be wished,’ says 
he, ‘ that we could live without seeing those things which we 
cannot lawfully practice : but because idolatry has so filled the 
world with evils, a man may be present in some cases, where 
duty binds him to the man, and not to the idol. If I am called 
to a priesthood or to a sacrifice, I will not go: for that is the 
proper office or service of the idol: neither will I contribute by 
my counsel, or my expense, or my labour to any such thing. 
If when I am called to a sacrifice, I go and assist, | am par- 
taker of the idolatry: but if any other cause joins me to the 
sacrificer, I am only a spectator of the sacrifice.’ He applies 
this particularly to slaves waiting on their Heathen masters, 
and children or clients on their patrons or parents, and officers 
on governors and judges. ‘If we are careful to observe this 
rule, neither by word nor deed to give any assistance to the 


XVI. iv. 


79 De Idolol. cc. 16, 17. (pp. 95 ¢, 
et g6a.) Utinam...nec videre pos- 
semus, qui facere nobis nefas est. 
Sed quoniam ita Malus circumdedit 
seculum idololatria, licebit adesse 
in quibusdam, qu nos homini, non 
idolo, officiosos habent. Plane ad 
sacerdotium et sacrifictum vocatus 
non ibo, proprium enim idoli offi- 
cium est; sed neque consilio, neque 
sumptu, aliave opera in ejusmodi 
fungar. Si propter sacrificium vo- 
catus assistam, ero particeps idolo- 
latriz : si me alia causa conjungit 
sacrificanti, ero tantum spectator sa- 


crificii. Czeterum quid facient servi 
vel liberti fideles? item officiales 
sacrificantibus dominis, vel patronis, 
vel presidibus [suis] adherentes ὃ 
Sed si merum quis sacrificanti tra- 
diderit, immo si verbo quoque ali- 
quo sacrificio necessario adjuverit, 
minister habebitur idololatriz. Hu- 
jus regule memores etiam magis- 
tratibus et potestatibus officium pos- 
sumus reddere secundum patriar- 
chas et ceeteros majores, qui regibus 
idololatris usque ad finem idolola- 
trie apparuerunt. 


§ 15, 16. 


idolatrous service, we may attend on magistrates and powers, 
after the example of the patriarchs and others of our ancestors, 
who waited on idolatrous kings, usque ad jinem idololatrie, 
as far as the confines of idolatry would permit them. He 
gives the same resolution in some other private and common 
cases 8°, as a Christian’s being obliged to attend the solemnity 
of giving a youth the toga virilis, the habit of a man, the 
solemnity of espousals or nuptials, or the manumission of a 
slave, or giving him a new name. For all these things were 
innocent in themselves: and though idolatrous rites were 
usually mixed with them, yet a man might be present without 
communicating in those rites, distinguishing the causes which 
required his attendance. They were pure and clean in their 
own nature: for neither does the habit of a man, nor the ring 
of espousals, nor the joining of man and woman in marriage, 
descend originally from any honour of an idol: for all these 
things are allowed by God; and though sacrifices were used in 
the ceremony, yet a man whose office and business was not in 
the sacrifice, but required upon some other account, might law- 
fully attend them without defilement.’ This was the resolution 
of all such cases where some obligation of office or duty re- 
quired a man’s presence at some idolatrous service; not as 
contributing any ways his assistance in it, or communicating 
either directly or indirectly in the service, but only performing 
what properly belonged to him by virtue of his lawful employ- 
ment; and being ready, like Valentinian, to show his aversion 
to all superstitious and idolatrous rites when any more peculiar 
occasion required it. The being present barely to perform 
some other duty was not interpreted in this case any commu- 
nicating with idolatry, because the very tenour of his obligation 
and duty sufficiently demonstrated it to be otherwise. 
16. But where a man had no such necessary call or obliga- Whetherhe 

tion to perform any duty that required his presence in a temple, agree, 


his own 


then to be present at an idolatrous service, or do any thing ™eat in an 
: idol temple. 


idolatry, Sc. 223 


80 Ibid. c. τό. (p.g5¢.) Cirea off- siderande, quibus prestatur offi- 


cia vero privatarum et communium 
solemnitatum, ut toge pure, ut 
sponsalium, ut nuptialium, ut no- 
minalium, nullum putem periculum 
observari de afflatu idololatria, que 
intervenit. Causz enim sunt con- 


cium. Eas mundas esse opinor per 
semetipsas, quia neque vestitus vi- 
rilis, neque annulus, aut conjunctio 
maritalis de alicujus idoli honore 
descendit ; &c. 


224 The great crimes, XVI. iv. 


that might look with a suspicious aspect towards it, was a 
sufficient reason to bring him under ecclesiastical censure. 
Thus no one could pretend any just reason to carry his own 
meat and eat it in an idol-temple, but this must needs imply 
some disposition towards idolatry: and therefore the Council 
of Ancyra made a decree 31, ‘that such as feasted with the 
Heathen upon any idol-festival in any place set apart for that 
service, though they carried their own meat and eat it there, 
should do two years’ penance for it... The canon does not 
expressly call the place an idol-temple, but τόπον ἀφωρισμένον, 
a place set apart for the service: which, whether we take it 
for a temple, or any other place of feasting, is all one; since it 
was a place appropriated to the worship of the idol on a festival 
peculiarly dedicated to the honour of some Heathen god. 


Or feast 17. And this sort of feasting with the Heathen on their 
eee proper festivals, whether in a temple or out of a temple, was 
on their precisely forbidden under the notion of ‘communicating with 
ee them in their impiety.’ Which are the express words of the 


Council of Laodicea 83, prohibiting this practice of keeping such 
festivals with the Gentiles. Among the Apostolical Canons, 
there is also one 88 that forbids Christians to carry oil to any 
Heathen temple, or Jewish synagogue, or to set up lights on 
their festivals under the penalty of excommunication. Which 
shows that Christians were sometimes inclined to concur with 
the Heathens in this practice. 

And this seems to be the most rational sense that can be 
given of those two canons of the Council of Eliberis, which so 
much trouble interpreters; the one of which 54. forbids the 
lighting wax-candles by day in the cemeteries or burying- 
places of the martyrs, for fear of disquieting the spirits of the 
saints, under the penalty of excommunication: and the other®® 


84 C, 34. (t. 1. p. 674 ἃ.) Cereos 


81 C. 7. See before, 5. 5. p. 202. 
per diem placuit in ccemeterio non 


Ὡς 15. 
incendi. 


82 C. 39. (t. I. p. 1504 c.) Ὅτι 
ov δεῖ τοῖς ἔθνεσι συνεορτάζειν καὶ 
κοινωνεῖν τῇ ἀθεότητι αὐτῶν. 

83 C. 71. [juxt. Labb. c. 70.] 
(Cotel. [c. 63.] v. 1. p. 446.) Et τις 
Χριστιανὸς ἔλαιον ἀπενέγκοι εἰς ἱερὸν 
ἐθνῶν, ἢ εἰς συναγωγὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἢ 
ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς αὐτῶν λύχνους ἅψη 


ἀφοριζέσθω. 


Inquietandi enim sanc- 
torum spiritus non sunt. Qui hee 
non observaverint, arceantur ab ec- 
clesiz communione. 

8 C. 37. (ibid. e.).... Prohiben- 
di [4]. prohibendum] etiam ne lu- 
cernas publice accendant. Si facere 
contra interdictum voluerint, absti- 
neant a communione. 


idolatry, Sc. 


prohibits the setting up of lamps in public under the same 
penalty of being cast out of the communion of the Church.’ 
Albaspiny 36 thinks these orders were made upon a mistaken 
notion, that the souls of the martyrs were still waiting under 
the altars; which, he says, was the opinion of Cyprian and 


Tertullian. 


But it is more probable that the Council forbad 


these rites upon another ground, because they were super- 
stitious and idolatrous rites used by the Heathen in their 
solemnities, as is expressly said by Tertullian‘?, and many 


others collected by Baronius 55. 


86 Ad C. Eliber. c. 34. (CC. t. 1. 
p- 998 a.) Ego autem facile adducor, 
ut credam Concilii illius patres o- 
pinionem mentemque ‘Tertulliani, 
D. Cypriani, et eorum, qui ea ztate 
florerent, secutos, qui animas mar- 
tyrum sub altaribus herere et ha- 
bitare, ibique, dum eorum mortem 
Deus ulcisceretur, expectare sense- 
runt: atque adeo verba illa, capite 
6. Apocalyps., ad verbum tueri ac 
recipere Divum Cyprianum de Lap- 
sis: Sub ara Dei anime occisorum 
martyrum clamant magna voce, di- 
centes, Quousque Domine, sanctus et 
verus, non judicas et vindicas san- 
guinem nostrum de tis, qui in terris 
inhabitant ? et requiescere et pati- 
entiam adhuc tenere jubentur. Et 
quenquam posse aliquis existimat re- 
mittendis passim donandisque pec- 
catis bonum fiert contra judicem velle, 
aut, priusquam vindicetur ipse, alios 
posse defendere? Quibus credere 
videtur martyrum animas sub aris 
quiescere. Idem de Bouo Patientiz : 
Unde etiam clamantes martyres, et 
ad vindictam suam dolore erumpente 
properantes, expectare adhuc ju- 
bentur, et temporibus consummandis 
implendisque martyribus prebere pa- 
tientiam. Et cum aperuisset, inquit, 
Agnus quintum sigillua, vidi sub ara 
Dei animas occisorum propter ver- 
bum Dei et martyrium suum, et cla- 
maverunt voce magna, dicentes. I- 
dem ad Quirinum, libro tertio: Et 
cum aperuisset quintum signum, vidi 
sub ara Dei animas occisorum prop- 
ter verbum Dei et martyrium suum. 
Tertullianus de Resurrect. Carnis, 
capite 25: Etiam in Apocalypsi Jo- 
annis ordo temporum sternitur, quem 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


And this seems to be the true 


martyrum quoque anime sub altari, 
ultionem et judicium flagitantes, sus- 
tinere didicerunt ; ut prius et orbis 
de pateris angelorum plagas suas 
ebibat, et prostituta illa civitas a de- 
cem regibus dignos exitus referat, et 
bestia Antichristus cum suo pseudo- 
propheta certamen ecclesie Dei in- 
ferat; atque ita, Diabolo in abyssum 
interim relegato, prime resurrectio- 
nis prerogativa de soliis ordinetur : 
dehinc, et igni dato, universalis resur- 
rectionis censura de libris judicetur. 
Idem de Anima, capite 8: Sol enim 
corpus, siquidem ignis: sed quod 
aquila confiteatur, neget noctua, non 
tamen prejudicans aquile : tantum- 
dem et anime corpus invisibile carni 
si forte, spiritut vero visibile; sic 
Joannes, in Spiritu Dei factus, ani- 
mas martyrum conspicit.—Idem ad- 
versus Gnosticos, capite 11: Sed et 
interim sub altari martyrum anime 
placidum quiescunt, et fiducia ultio- 
nis candidum claritatis usurpant, 
donec et alii consortium illarum glo- 
γί impleant, δ. 

87 Apolog. c. 35. (p. 28.) Grande 
videlicet officium, focos et toros in 
publicum educere, vicatim epulari, 
&c.—Ibid. c. 46. (p. 35 ¢-) Quis 
enim philosophum sacrificare, aut 
dejerare, aut lucernas meridie va- 
nas prostituere compellit ?—De Ido- 
lol. c. 15. (p.94 Ὁ.) Sed luceant, 
inquit, opera vestra. At nunc lu- 
cent taberne et januz nostre.... 
De ista quoque specie quid videtur? 
Si idoli honor est, sine dubio idoli 
honor idololatria est, &c. [See the 
chapter throughout. Ep. ] 

8 An. 58. ἢ. 72. (t. I. p. 545. 8.) 
Haud equidem est dubium, ἅς, 


Q 


226 XVI. iv. 


The great crimes, 


reason why the Council forbad them, that Christians might not 
symbolize with the Heathens in such superstitious practices. 
But, to proceed, the Heathen festivals are known to the Civil 
Law under the general name of vota, and votorum celebritas, 
solemn days of prayer and worship of their gods: and, as 
Gothofred 59 has accurately distinguished them, they comprised, 
First, all their ludi, or days of public shows, which were in 
honour of their gods. Among which the Maiuma is very 
famous, there being a title in the Theodosian Code 90 concern- 
ing the permission and regulation of it under the Christian 
emperors, till at last it was finally put down by Arcadius. 
Secondly, their other days of public feasting. Thirdly, the 
Kalends of January or beginning of a new year: against the 
superstitious observations of which there are frequent invectives 
in the writings of the Ancients, particularly in St. Ambrose 9, 
Asterius Amasenus 95, and Prudentius %. Fourthly, the third 
of January, which was a noted festival or day of Heathen 
devotion for the emperor’s safety. Among these may be also 
reckoned their Bromialia, forbidden by the Council of Trul- 
Ιο 91: and the Neomenia, or New Moons, against which St. 
Chrysostom has a whole discourse % to dissuade Christians 
from the observation of them: where he particularly inveighs 


89 In Cod. Theod. 1. τό. tit. το. 
de Paganis, leg. 8. (t. 6. p. 269. sub 
med. col. dextr.) Votorum celebri- 
tas seu vota publica....sunt, pri- 
mo Ludi, ἧτο. 

90 De Maiuma, 1. 15. tit. 6. (t. 5. 


Auspiciis epulisque sacris, quas 
inveterato, 

Heu miseri, sub honore agitant, 
et gaudia ducunt 

Festa kalendarum. 

94 C. 62. See further on, p. 230. 


P- 375-) Conf. legg. 1, 2 

91 Serm, 1. [41].. 2]. ({. 2: 805 
pend. p. 400 b. n. 3.) Janus enim 
homo fuit unius conditor civitatis, 
‘que Janiculum nuncupatur ; in cu- 
jus honorem a gentibus Kalendz 
sunt Januariz nuncupate : unde, qui 
Kalendas Januarias colit, peccat, 
quoniam homini mortuo defert di- 
vinitatis obsequium. 

92 Hom. 4. de Fest. Kalend. (ap. 
Combefis. Auctar. Nov. pp. 65, 5644.) 
Δύο κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἑορταὶ συνέδραμον 
ἐπὶ τῆς χθίζης καὶ τῆς sper sig 
ἡμέρας" K. τ. A. 

93 Cont. Symmach. 1.1. vv. 237- 
240. (v. I. p. 736.) 

.... Jano etiam celebri de mense 

litatur 


n. 5.—Conf. ες. 65. (t. 6. p. 1171 ¢.) 
Tas ἐν ταῖς veounviats ὑπό τινων πρὸ 
τῶν οἰκείων ἐργαστηρίων καὶ οἴκων 
ἀναπτομένας πυρκαϊὰς, ἃς καὶ ὑπεράλ- 
λεσθαί τινες κατά τι ἔθος ἀρχαῖον 
ἐπιχειροῦσιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ παρόντος κα- 
ταργηθῆναι προστάσσομεν. 

% Hom. 23. In eos, qui Novi- 
lunia observant. t. 1. p. 297. [8]. in. 
Kalend. J ( (τ Ὁ: 699 a.). . Παρατη- 
povow ἡμέρας, -- καὶ οἰωνίζονται, καὶ 
νομίζουσιν, εἰ τὴν νουμηνίαν τοῦ μηνὸς 
τούτου μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς καὶ εὐφροσύνης 
ἐπιτελέσαιεν, καὶ τὸν ἅπαντα τοιοῦτον 
ἕξειν ἐνιαυτόν... Γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες 
φιάλας καὶ ποτήρια πληρώσαντες μετὰ 
πολλῆς τῆς ἀσωτίας τὸν ἄκρατον πί- 
νουσι. 


§ 17. 


idolatry, Se. 227 
against the impious superstition that was still reigning in men’s 
hearts, as the relics of Paganism. For they were superstitiously 
addicted to observation of times, and made divination and con- 
jectures upon them ; as, if they spent the new moon of such a 
month in mirth and pleasure, the whole year following would 
be prosperous and lucky to them. So both men and women 
gave themselves to intemperance and exces8 on these days, out 
of this ‘ diabolical persuasion,’ as he justly terms it, that the good 
or bad fortune of the rest of the year depended upon such an 
ominous beginning of it. Which was the Devil’s invention to 
ruin the practice of all virtue. He observes further %, that 
they were used in the celebration of these times to set up lamps 
in the market-place, and crown their doors with garlands, which 
he condemns together with their superstition and intemperance, 
as a mixture of diabolical pomp and childish folly. By which 
we see how prone men were to follow the Heathen in such 
practices, even when they were delivered both from their 
ignorance and compulsion: and much more, may we suppose, 
were they under a temptation to comply with them in the 
observation of their festivals, whilst they were under the terror 
of their laws and violent persecutions. Nay, even in St. Austin’s 
time the Heathen were so insolent in Afric as to compel the 
Christians to observe their festivals, of which the African 
fathers in the fifth Council of Carthage % were forced to com- 
plain to the Emperor Honorius, and petition him by his author- 


ity to redress the grievance. 


They represent to him ‘ how 


the Pagans, in many places, not only kept their superstitious 


96 Hom. 23. p. 300. (ibid. Pp. 701 
Ὁ.).. . Καὶ λύχνους ἅπτειν ἐπὶ τῆς 
dyapiic, καὶ στεφανώματα πλέκειν, 
παιδικῆς ἀνοίας ἐστίν. 

7 C. 5. (t. 2. p. 1216 Ὁ.) Illud 
etiam petendum, ut quoniam contra 
precepta divina convivia multis lo- 
cis exercentur, que ab errore Gentili 
attracta sunt, ita ut nunc a Paganis 
Christiani ad hee celebranda co- 
gantur, ex qua re temporibus Chris- 
tianorum Imperatorum persecutio 
altera fieri occulte videatur, vetari 
talia jubeant, et de civitatibus et de 
oe imposita poena, pro- 

ibere. [This citation is apparently 
erroneous, See ibid. c. 15. (p. 1218 


b.) Item placuit ab imperatoribus 
gloriosissimis peti ut reliquiz ido- 
lolatriz, &c. But the Author, while 
citing the fifth Council of Carthage 
as above, seems to quote the Latin 
version of the Codex Africanus, c. 63. 
(al. 60.] (CC. ibid. p. 1086 d.) Ka- 
κεῖνο ἔτι μὴν δεῖ αἰτῆσαι παρὰ τῶν 
Χριστιανῶν βασιλέων, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ 
τὰ θεῖα παραγγέλματα ἐν πολλοῖς τύ- 
rots συμπόσια οὕτως ἐπιτελοῦνται, ἐκ 
τῆς ἐθνικῆς πλάνης προσενεχθέντα, ἁ ὡς 
καὶ Χριστιανοὺς τοῖς Ἕλλησι λάθρα 
προσυνάγεσθαι ἐ εν τῇ τούτων τελετῇ" 
ἵνα κελεύσωσι τὰ τοιαῦτα κωλυθῆναι 
καὶ ἐκ τῶν πόλεων καὶ ἐκ τῶν κτήσεων, 
Ep.] 
Ὁ 2 


228 XVI. iv. 


feasts themselves, but forced the Christians to join with them ; 
so that it looked like a secret persecution under Christian 
emperors : wherefore they desired him to make a law to pro- 
hibit them both in city and country, and restrain them by 
some suitable penalty inflicted on them.’ Which at first Ho- 
norius refused to grant, but afterward he complied with their 
request upon more mature deliberation. 

The law is still exstant in the Theodosian Code 98, forbidding 
all holding of feasts or other solemnities in temples in honour 
of the gods; and enjoining all bishops and judges of the 
provinces to take care of the execution of it. Yet this did not 
so root out the superstition, but that many Heathens still con- 
tinued in it; and some looser Christians were ready enough, 
either to join with the Heathen in their practices, or at least 
to imitate the luxury and vanity of them under the notion of 


The great crimes, 


Christian observations. 


St. Austin makes a bitter complaint in one of his Epistles? 


of the insolence of the Heathen 


93 L. τό. tit. το. de Paganis, leg. 
1g. (t. 6. p. 288.) Non liceat om- 
nino in honorem sacrilegi ritus fu- 
nestioribus locis exercere convivia, 
et quidquam solemnitatis agitare. 
Episcopis quoque locorum hec ip- 
sa prohibendi ecclesiasticee manus 
tribuimus facultatem; judices au- 
tem viginti librarum auri poena con- 
stringimus, et pari forma officia eo- 
rum, si hee eorum fuerint dissi- 
mulatione neglecta. 

99 Ep. 202. [al. 91.] ad Necta- 
rium. (t. 2.p. 226g. ef p. 227 a.) 
Contra recentissimas leges Kalendis 
Juniis festo Paganorum sacrilega 
solemnitas agitata est, nemine pro- 
hibente, tam insolenti ausu, ut, quod 
nec Juliani temporibus factum est, 
petulantissima turba saltantium in 
eodem prorsus vico ante fores trans- 
iret ecclesiz, quam rem illicitissi- 
mam atque indignissimam clericis 
prohibere tentantibus, ecclesia lapi- 
data est. Deinde post dies ferme 
octo, cum leges notissimas episco- 
pus ordini replicasset, et dum ea 
quz jussa sunt, velut implere dis- 
ponunt, iterum ecclesia Japidata est. 
Postridie nostris ad imponendum 
perditis metum, quod videbatur 


immediately after the publish- 


apud Acta dicere volentibus publica 
jura negata sunt. Eodemque ipso 
die, ut vel divinitus terrerentur, 
grando lapidationibus reddita est ; 
qua transacta continuo tertiam lapi- 
dationem, et postremo ignes eccle- 
siasticis tectis atque hominibus in- 
tulerunt ; unum servorum Dei, τς 
oberrans occurrere potuit, occide- 
runt, ceteris partim ubi potuerant 
latitantibus, partim qua potuerant 
fugientibus, cum interea contrusus 
atque coartatus quodam loco se oc- 
cultaret episcopus, ubi se ad mor- 
tem querentium voces audiebat si- 
bique increpantium, quod, eo non 
invento, gratis tantum perpetrassent 
scelus. Gesta sunt hee ab hora 
ferme decima usque ad noctis par- 
tem non minimam. Nemo com- 
pescere, nemo subvenire tentavit 
illorum, quorum esse gravis posset 
auctoritas, preter unum peregri- 
num, per quem et plurimi servi Dei 
de manibus interficere conantium 
liberati sunt, et multa extorta pre- 
dantibus ; per quem clarum factum 
est, quam facile illa vel omnino non 
fierent, vel coepta desisterent, si ci- 
ves maximeque primates ea fieri 
perficique vetuissent. 





§ 17. 


idolatry, δ᾽. 229 


ing of this law: how, upon one of their festivals on the Kalends_ 
of June, they came dancing in a petulant manner before the 
doors of the church: which when the clergy endeavoured to 
prohibit, they stoned the church: and when the bishop com- 
plained to the judges, they stoned it again, and a third time, 
setting fire to the houses belonging to the church, and killing 
some of the clergy, and causing others to fly for their lives. 
‘An insolent and daring attempt, not to be paralleled by any 
thing, he says, ‘that was done in the time of Julian.” And, 
what was worse than all, no one of the magistrates or chief 
men of the place either offered to quell the riot, or give any 
assistance to the sufferers, except a stranger of some authority, 
who delivered many of the servants of God out of their hands ; 
whilst the rest only looked on the abuse with pleasure, and 
some of them were strongly suspected as working underhand 
to excite this tumult and set the Heathen upon them, being 
grieved at this new law, which laid a restraint upon these 
festivals, in which they were wont to take so much pleasure. 
Which shows how deeply the love of these Heathen festi- 
yals was rooted in the hearts of many carnal and libertine 
Christians. 

In another Epistle! he makes as sad a complaint to Aurelius, 
bishop of Carthage, of the intemperance and debauchery, which 
many such Christians were wont to commit upon the festivals 
of their own martyrs, and other anniversary commemorations 
of their deceased friends; which was only acting all the im- 
purity of the Heathen festivals under the name of Christian. 
He prays him therefore? to take some method to drive away 
such profane and sacrilegious impurities from the house of 
God. But he thinks this could not be done by any rough me- 
thods, or in any imperious way, but by instruction, rather than 
commanding ; and by admonition, rather than threatening : for 


1 Ep. 64. (al. 22. c. 1.] ad Aure- 
lium. (ibid. p. 28 a, b.) Comessa- 
tiones enim et ebrietates ita con- 
cesse et licite putantur, ut in ho- 
norem etiam beatissimorum marty- 
rum, non solum per dies solemnes, 
(quod ipsum quis non lugendum 
videat, qui hee non carnis oculis in- 
spicit ὃ) sed etiam quotidie celebren- 
tur.—Ibid. (p. 29 a.) Sed quoniam 


iste in ccemeteriis ebrietates et lux- 
uriosa convivia, non solum honores 
martyrum a carnali et imperita plebe 
credi solent, sed etiam solatia mor- 
tuorum, mihi videtur, &c. 

2 Ibid. (p. 28 c.) .... Saltem de 
sanctorum corporum sepulchris, sal- 
tem de locis sacramentorum, de do- 
mibus orationum tantum dedecus 
arceatur. 


230 The great crimes, 


that was the only way to deal with a multitude®: the severity 
of discipline was only to be exercised upon sinners, when their 
numbers were small. This is a grievous complaint indeed, and 
he often repeats it in other places*: which shows how close the 
superstition and pleasure of the Heathen festivals stuck to the 
hearts of many ignorant and carnal men, even after they be- 
came Christian: and their multitudes in Afric were so great, 
that though their crimes deserved the severity of excommuni- 
cation, yet St. Austin in such circumstances could not think 
that the proper remedy to cure the distemper. St. Ambrose 
and other Italian bishops, he says, did happily root out this 
evil custom, and that was some ground to hope it might be 
effected in Afric. But yet long after this we find the complaint 
renewed against Christians retaining the relics of Heathen su- 
perstition in this matter of observing festivals. For the Council 
of Trullo has a canon that forbids the observation of the Ka- 
lends, and the Bota, and the Brumalia, and the solemnity of 
the first of March, or May, as different copies read it, and the 


XVI. iv. 


3 Ibid. (f.) Non ergo aspere, quan- 
tum existimo, non duriter, non modo 
imperioso ista tolluntur; magis do- 
cendo, quam jubendo; magis mo- 
nendo, quam minando. Sic enim 
agendum est cum multitudine; se- 
veritas autem exercenda est in pec- 
cata paucorum. 

4 Cont. Faust. 1. 20. δ. 21. (t. 8. 
p. 348 a.) Qui autem se in memo- 
riis martyrum inebriant, quomodo a 
nobis approbari possunt, cum eos, 
etiam si in domibus suis id faciant, 
sana doctrina condemnet? Sed 
aliud est quod docemus, aliud quod 
sustinemus: aliud quod precipere 
jubemur, aliud quod emendare pre- 
cipimur, et donec emendemus, tole- 
rare compellimur. Alia est disci- 
plina Christianorum, alia luxuria 
vinolentorum, vel error infirmorum. 
—De Civitat. Dei, 1. 8. c. 27. (t. 7. 
p- 217 d.) Quicunque etiam epulas 
suas eo [ad martyrum loca] defe- 
runt, quod quidem a Christianis 
melioribus non fit, et in plerisque 
terrarum nulla talis est consuetudo; 
tamen quicumque id faciunt, quas 
cum apposuerint, orant, et auferunt, 
ut vescantur, vel ex eis etiam indi- 


gentibus largiantur, sanctificari sibi 
eas volunt per merita martyrum in 
nomine Domini martyrum.— See 
before, ch. 3. s. 6. p. 153. n. 6t. 

SC 62. (te: p. 1170 ἃ.) Tas 
οὕτω λεγομένας poe kal τὰ λε- 
γόμενα Βοτὰ, καὶ τὰ καλούμενα Βρου- 
μάλια, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ Μαρ- 
τίου μηνὸς ἡμέρᾳ τελουμένην πανή- 
γυριν, καθάπαξ ἐκ τῆς τῶν πιστῶν 
πολιτείας περιαιρεθῆναι βουλόμεθα" 
ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς τῶν γυναίων δημο- 
σίας ὀρχήσεις, πολλὴν λύμην καὶ 
βλάβην ἐμποιεῖν δυναμένας" ἔτι μὴν 
καὶ τὰς ὀνόματι τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι 
ψευδῶς ὀνομασθέντων θεῶν, ἢ ἐξ ἀν- 
δρῶν ἢ γυναικῶν γενομένας ὀρχήσεις 
καὶ τελετὰς κατά τι ἔθος παλαιὸν καὶ 
ἀλλότριον τοῦ τῶν Χριστιανῶν βίου, 
ἀποπεμπόμεθα' ὁρίζοντες μηδένα ἄν- 
dpa γυναικείαν στολὴν ἐνδιδύσκεσθαι, 
ἢ γυναῖκα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἁρμόδιον" 
ἀλλὰ “μήτε προσωπεῖα κωμικὰ, ἢ σα- 
τυρικὰ, ἢ τραγικὰ ὑποδύεσθαι" μήτε 
τὸ τοῦ βδελυκτοῦ Διονύσου ὄνομα τὴν 
σταφυλὴν ἀποθλίβοντας ἐν τοῖς λη- 
vois ἐπιβοᾷν" μηδὲ τὸν οἶνον ἐν τοῖς 
πίθοις ἐπιχέοντας, ἀγνοίας τρόπῳ ἢ 
ματαιότητι, τὰ τῆς μανιώδους πλάνης 
ἐνεργοῦντας. 





§ 17. 


idolatry, §c. 231 


public dancings, and other ceremonies used by men and wo- 
men, as handed down by ancient custom under the names of 
the Heathen false gods: prohibiting likewise the interchanging 
of habits in men and women, and wearing of comical and tra- 
gical masks, and satirical dresses, and calling upon the name 
of Bacchus in treading the wine-press, with some other such 
ridiculous vanities, proceeding from the imposture of the Devil. 
The Kalends here signify the First of January. The Bota is 
explained by Balsamon, and others who follow him, to be the 
Feast of the god Pan, because βοτὰ signifies sheep : but Gotho- 
fred® and Suicerus? more judiciously render it vota, it being 
only the Latin name vota turned into Greek, and denoting the 
Heathen festival on the third of January for the safety of the 


emperor. 


The Brumalia is by Balsamon understood of the feast of 


6 In Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. ro. 
de Paganis, leg. 8. (t.6. p.270. ad 
summ. col. sinistr.) Balsamo 
joculariter lapsus est, qui τὰ Bora 
ἀπὸ τῶν βοτῶν, id est, ἀπὸ τῶν προ- 
βάτων, deduxit, et festum id in Pa- 
nis honorem agitari solitum pro- 
didit. 

7 Thes. Eccles. (t.1. p. 705.) Bora 
apud recentiores Grecos, vota et 
votorum dies Latinis appellantur, 
qui annum inchoant, ob solemnem 
pro salute principis votorum nun- 
cupationem. Et quidem κυρίως ter- 
tius post kalendas Januarii dies ap- 
pellatione votorum intelligitur, ut 
est in Lege 233. de verborum signi- 
ficatione, et apud Dionem, libr. 58., 
licet ipsis etiam kalendis suscepta 
pro principe vota, ut illo ipso loco 
scripsit Dio. Retinuere Christiani 
principes votorum et morem et ap- 
pellationem, ut apparet ex titulo 
Codicis de Oblatione Votorum: et ex 
eanone 62. Concilii in Trullo: Tas 
οὕτω, x.t.A. [See n.5; preceding. ] 
Balsamon ad hunc canonem, pag. 
436., de vocis βοτὰ origine suaviter 
philosophatur, dum illud Grecis 
suis vindicat, vultque esse illud no- 
men ei festo inditum ἀπὸ τῶν Borer, 
ἤγουν προβάτων, quod in honorem 

anis, pastorum dei, sit institutum ; 
quasi prior significatio hic haberet 


Oe ea a 


locum. A Balsamone etiam seduc- 
tus Cl. Meursius in Glossario suo 
scribit βοτὰ esse festum quoddam in 
honorem Panis institutum. At Bora 
sunt hic vota, ut recte Interpres 
vertit, et Casaubonus in Spartianum 
docet.—[Confer. Reinesii Var. Lec- 
tiones, 1. 2. c. 4. (Altenburg. 1637. 
p. 144.) Tit. Vota pro salute reipub- 
lice, civium, principum, a Romanis 
concipi solita. Dies huic consuetu- 
dini certi festi. Greci Bora appel- 
larunt .... De Botois Theod. Balsa- 
monis error, qui Pani sacrum festum 
Suisse putat ; &e.—Conf. Vopiscum, 
Vit. Taciti. (int. Aug. Hist. Scrip- 
tor. Ρ. 911.) Nec tacendum est, et 
frequenter intimandum, tantam se- 
natus letitiam fuisse, quod eligendi 
principis cura ad ordinem amplis- 
simum revertisset, ut et supplica- 
tiones decernerentur, et hecatombe 
promitteretur a singulis.—Vid. plu- 
ra ap. Reines. ibid. (p. 145.) Cum 
autem ista festivitas, [nempe Bora 
s. vota] ut fit, in κωμασίας, compo- 
tationes, et obscenitates tempore 
vergeret, patres Concilii Constanti- 
nop. 6. an. 688, celebrati in Trullo, 
c. 62. prohibuerunt, ne quis 
Christianorum de cxtero τὰ λεγό- 
μενα Bora agitaret, eaque ἐκ τῶν m- 
στῶν πολιτείας Omnino tolli consti- 
tuerunt. Ep.] 


232 The great crimes, XVI. iy. 


Bacchus: but it may be better explained from Tertullian’, 
who, among many other Heathen festivals, which some Christ- 
lans were very much inclined to observe, reckons the Brume, 
or Brumalia, and objects it by way of reproach to such Christ- 
ians, ‘that they were not so true to their religion as the Hea- 
thens were to theirs: for the Heathens would never observe 
any Christian solemnity, either the Lord’s-day or Pentecost, or 
any other: they will not communicate with us in these things ; 
for they are afraid of being thought Christians: but we are 
not afraid of being thought Heathens, whilst we celebrate their 
Saturnalia, and Januarie, and Brume, and Matronales, and 
mutually send presents and new year’s gifts, and observe their 
sports and feasts.’ Where by the Brume learned men? un- 
derstand, not the feasts of Bacchus, but the festivals of the 
winter-solstice, properly called bruma, from which they made 
a conjecture, whether the remainder of winter would prove 
fortunate to them or not. This superstition, being a relic of 
old Paganism, continued in the minds of many Christians to 
the time of the Council of Trullo, anno 692. Which was the 
reason why this Council forbad it, with many other observa- 
tions of the like nature, under the penalty of excommunication; 
which, as we have seen, was always the punishment of such 
crimes, except when the multitude of offenders, as St. Austin 1° 


8 De Idolol. c. 14. (p. 944.)... 
Saturnalia, et Januaric, et Brume, 
et Matronales frequentantur, mu- 
nera commeant, strenze consonant, 
lusus, convivia constrepunt. O me- 
ΠΟΥ fides Nationum in suam sectam: 
quz nullam solemnitatem Christia- 
norum sibi vindicat, non Domini- 
cum diem, non Pentecosten. Eti- 
amsi nossent, nobiscum communi- 
cassent; timerent enim, ne Christiani 
viderentur. Nos, ne ethnici pronun- 
tiemur, non veremur.—C. Io. (p. 
gia.) Etiam strene captande et 
Septimontium et Brume, &c. 

9 Vid. Junium in loc. (Oper. 
Tertull. Franequer. 1597. Notar. p. 
105.) Hune diem quoque festum 
celebrant, velut primum diem so- 
laris anni: est enim bruma τροπὴ 
χειμερινὴ, quam posterior ztas sol- 
stitium hibernum appellavit, Colu- 
mella, lib. 9. etiam brumale solsti- 


tium.—Hospinian. de Festis Ethni- 
corum, c. 28. p. 127. (p. 224. col. 
dextr.) Brumalia. Bruma a brevitate 
dierum dicta, Pompeio auctore, quasi 
βραχύμερον, tempus illud est, cum 
breviores sunt dies. Et ut ex Flo- 
rentino Principe Paulus Marsus in 
Commentariis ad lib. 1. Ovidii Fas- 
torum, et Merula in Comment. in 
Elegiam 12. lib. 3. Tristium ejus- 
dem, indicat, ab octavo kalendarum 
Decembrium usque ad nonum ka- 
lendarum Jan. celebrabantur festa 
Brumalia. De hoc festo Ceelius, 
l. 15. 6. 24.°ex Grecorum collecta- 
neis rei rustice hee annotat: De- 
mocritus et Apuleius talem expectari 
hiemem aiunt oportere, cujusmodi fu- 
erit dies festus, quem Brumam vocant 
Romani: est autem quarta et vicesima 
Dii mensis, qui est November. 

10 See before, ch. 3. s. 6. p. 150. 
n. 57, and ibid. p. 153. n. 61. 





§ 17, 18, 19. idolatry, &c. 233 


says, made it impossible to exercise the severity of ecclesiastical 
discipline upon them. 

18. I take no notice here of the idolatry that might be com- ΕἾ ae Ἵ 
mitted in the worship of angels, or saints and martyrs, or the ne a 
Virgin Mary, or images, or the eucharist, because I have had ping angels, 
occasion before!® to speak more at large of these in several tyrs,images, 
parts of this work. And it will be sufficient here only to ob- ὦ 
serve in general, that none but professed heretics were ever 
accused of this sort of idolatry in the primitive ages, such as 
the Angelici, for worshipping angels, and the Simonians and 
Carpocratians for worshipping images, and the Collyridians for 
worshipping the Virgin Mary: and these being heretics by 
profession, there is no question but that the censures of the 
Church were inflicted on them, and all such as adhered to 
or went over to them; which is sufficient to remark here for 
explaining and confirming the exercise of discipline in the 
Church. 

19. There is but one thing more to be noted concerning the Of encou- 
practice of idolatry, which is, that all favourers and encouragers 45) Hal d 
of idolatry were equally reputed guilty of the crime with connivers 
idolaters themselves, as partaking in their sin. If a master εὐ 
sent his servant to sacrifice for him, the act was the servant's, 
but the guilt rebounded on the master’s head, as the principal 
‘author of it, as we have seen before in the case of the libella- 
tict, who employed their servants to sacrifice for them. If a 
judge, who was obliged by his office to extirpate idolatry, when 
the laws gave him authority and power to do it, did either 
publicly neglect his duty, or secretly connive at the practice of 
idolaters, he was reputed guilty of the crime by participation. 

Thus St. Austin'! charges the magistrates of a certain city, as 
criminals in this respect, ‘that when the laws had empowered 
them to root out all the remainders of idolatry, they were ne- 
gligent and remiss in putting them in execution :’ though the 
laws themselves, to which he refers!2, had laid a penalty of 
twenty pounds in gold upon any judge, or officer belonging to 


0 See Ὁ. 8. ch. 8. v. 3. p.147., Paganis, leg. 19. (t. 6. p. 288.) Ju- 


and b. 13. ch. 3. v. 4. p. 324. dices autem viginti librarium auri 
11 Ep. 202. See before, 8. 17. p. pcena contringimus, et pari forma 
228. n. gg. officia eorum, si hee eorum fuerint 


9 
12 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 10. de dissimulatione neglecta. 


234 The great crimes, XVI. iv. 


him, if by any dissimulation of theirs the force of the law, pro- 
hibiting Heathen festivals, was fraudulently evaded. 

So before idolatry was forbidden by the imperial laws, 
whilst under the countenance of Heathen emperors it rode 
triumphant, Christians were obliged not only to abstain from 
sacrificing themselves, but to lend no helping hand by their 
authority to the sacrifices; not to make a trade of selling 
victims; not to be guardians or curators of any temples, or 
collectors of their revenues; not to exhibit the public games 
and shows, either at their own expense or the expense of the 
public, or so much as preside in them when they were acted; 
not to use any of their solemn words or forms peculiar to 
idolatrous worship, nor to swear by the names of their gods: 
all which Tertullian remarks and puts together in one place 13, 
giving this as a reason why a Christian under an Heathen go- 
vernment could not safely take upon him the office of a judge ; 
because that post would oblige him to countenance idolatry, 
either by his authority or some other of those ways, which he 
could not do without injuring his conscience and doing violence 
to the laws of his own religion, which do not allow a man to 
help forward the practice of idolatry in others. And for this 
reason the Council of Eliberis made an order 14, ‘ that no pos- 
sessors or landlords should allow of any thing that was brought 
in their accounts by their managers or tenants as given to an 
idol, under the penalty of five years’ suspension from the com- 
munion.’ And in another canon !%, they order ‘all masters to 
prohibit their servants from retaining any idols in their houses, 
as far as lay in their power; or if they could not do this in 
times of persecution for fear their servants should use some 
violence towards them, (that is, inform against them or betray 


13 De Idolol. c. 17. (p. 96 b.) ... idolum datum fuerit, acceptum non 


Neque sacrificet, neque sacrificiis 
auctoritatem suam accommodet, non 
hostias locet, non curas templorum 
deleget, non vectigalia eorum pro- 
curet, non spectacula edat de suo 
aut de publico, aut edendis preesit : 
nihil solemne pronuntiet vel edicat, 
ne juret quidem. 

14 Ὁ, 40. (t. 1. p. 975 a.) Pro- 
hiberi placuit, ut cum rationes suas 
accipiunt possessores, quicquid ad 


referant; si post interdictum fece- 
rint, per quinquennii spatia tem- 
porum a communione esse arcen- 
dos. 

15 C, 41. (ibid. b.) Admoneri pla- 
cuit fideles, ut in quantum possint, 
prohibeant, ne idola in domibus 
suis habeant. Si vero vim metuunt 
servorum, vel seipsos puros con- 
servent; si non fecerint, alieni ab 
ecclesia habeantur. 





idolatry, δ᾽ 6. 235 


them,) they should at least keep themselves pure, or otherwise 
be cast out of the Church.’ In times of peace they were to 
earry their power a little further: for, by a rule of the second 
Council of Arles 16, after laws were made by the State to pro- 
hibit and root out idolatry, every presbyter within his. own 
territory or district was to prosecute all infidels that still con- 
tinued to light torches to idols, or worship trees, or fountains, 
or stones, under the penalty of being himself reputed guilty of 
sacrilege if he neglected so to do, And every lord or governor 
of the place, who upon admonition should refuse to correct 
such errors in those under his command, was to be deprived 
of the communion. By another canon of the Council of Elibe- 
ris }7, ‘all persons, both men and women, are prohibited to lend 
any Heathen their clothes and apparel to set off the secular 
pomp under the penalty of three years’ suspension from the 
communion.’ Where by the secular pomp it is most reasonable 
to understand the idolatrous ceremonies of the Heathen on 
their public festivals. But there is one case peculiarly guarded 
against in that Council, because many well-meaning Christians 
in a mistaken zeal against idolatry were apt to run in a con- 
trary extreme, and think themselves obliged to break and 
deface idols wherever they found them: to correct which error 
the Council 18 was forced to make another decree to forbid this 
unwarrantable practice, and to order, ‘ that if any one was slain 
in such a fact, he should not be enrolled in the catalogue of 
martyrs: because the Gospel gives no such command, neither 
do we find it ever practised by the Apostles.’ This observation 
of the Council concerning the practice of the Apostles seems 
to be very just. For whatever zeal they had against idolatry, 
we never read that they went in a tumultuous way into the 
Heathen temples to demolish their idols; but rather the con- 


16 C, 23. (t. 4. p. 1013 e.) Si in 
alicujus presbyter territorio infi- 
deles aut faculas accenderint [al. 
accendunt], aut arbores, fontes, vel 
Saxa venerentur: si hec eruere 
neglexerit, sacrilegii se esse reum 
cognoscat. Dominus autem vel or- 
dinator rei ipsius, si admonitus 
emendare noluerit, communione pri- 
vetur. 

7 Ὁ, 57. (t.1. Ρ. 976 6.) Matrone 


vel eorum mariti vestimenta sua ad 
ornandam seculariter pompam non 
dent. Et si fecerint, triennii tem- 
pore [4]. triennio] abstineant. 

18 Ibid. c. 60. (p.977 a.) Si quis 
idola fregerit, et ibidem fuerit oc- 
cisus, quoniam [4]. quatenus} in 
Evangelio non est scriptum, neque 
invenitur ab Apostolis unquam fac- 
tum, placuit in numerum eum non 
recipi martyrum. 


236 XVI. iv. 


The great crimes, 


trary character is given them by the testimony of the very 
Heathen. Of which we have an illustrious instance in the 
apology which the town-clerk of Ephesus made for Paul and 
his companions, when they were accused by Demetrius and the 
craftsmen who made silver shrines for Diana, as if they had 
done violence to her temple, and to the image which fell down 
from Jupiter: “ Ye have brought hither these men,” says he, 
“which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers 
of your goddess.” (Acts 19, 37.) 

It is true indeed, Eulalia the martyr had done some such 
thing not long before in Spain: but the Council would not 
have her action, which might be done by a peculiar impulse of 
the Spirit, drawn into example; because it was an unnecessary 
provocation of the Heathen and prejudicial to the Church, 
without any warrant from Scripture; which bids men con- 
fess Christ when they are called to do it, but not to provoke 
the enemy by an imprudent zeal when there is no just reason 
for it. And this is what Cyprian before them had always 
taught his people, both by his preaching and his writing 19, 
‘that they should raise no tumults, nor offer themselves of 
their own accord to the Gentiles; but when they were appre- 
hended and delivered up to the magistrate, then to speak what 
the Lord put into their hearts in that hour, who would have 
us to confess him when called to do it, but not rashly put our- 
selves upon it.’ 

Thus the Ancients in this matter of idolatry, the great 
crime of that age, steered their discipline with an even course, 
keeping a just medium between two extremes; neither al- 
lowing any sinful compliance or communication with it, nor 
encouraging any indiscreet and over-zealous opposition to it. 
And if Tertullian in the former case has stretched the matter 
a little too far; as when he determines it to be a species 
and smatch of idolatry for a schoolmaster to teach the names 
of the Heathen gods to his scholars, or for a Christian to 


19 Ep. 81. [4]. 83.] p. 239. (p- 334-) 
Vos autem, fratres carissimi, pro 
disciplina, quam de mandatis Do- 
minicis a me semper accepistis, et 
secundum quod me tranctante se- 
pissime didicistis, quietem et tran- 
quillitatem tenete: ne quisquam 


vestrum aliquem tumultum de fratri- 
bus moveat, aut ultro se Gentilibus 
offerat: apprehensus enim et traditus 
loqui debet ; siquidem in nobis Do- 
minus positus in illa hora loquatur, 
qui nos confiteri magis voluit, quam 
[temere] profiteri. 


§ 19. v. 5. divination, §c. 237 


bear arms, or fly in time of persecution; it is easy to account 
for these singularities, knowing out of what school they came, 
and that they were not the dictates of the Spirit of Christ, but 
the spirit of Montanus: and it is a sufficient answer to any 
such pretences, that we meet with no such dogmatical as- 
sertions in purer writers, nor any such rules in ecclesiastical 
discipline, nor any such overbearing custom in the Church of 
God. 

I have been the more curious in stating the sense of the 
Ancients upon these several questions, both because they are 
useful to explain the discipline of the Church, and also because 
they may have their use when applied to other cases: and it is 
not very common to find the subject of idolatry treated of in 
this way by modern authors. 


CHAP, Va 


Of the practice of curious and forbidden arts, divination, 
magic, and enchantment: and of the laws of the Church 
made for the punishment of them. 


1. Anoruer great crime against religion was the practice of Of the se- 
curious and forbidden arts, which are almost innumerable, from ΤᾺ Sorts 
the great and various inclination of men to superstition. I shall tion, parti- 
sum them up under three general names, divination, magic, τανε εἶν, 
and enchantment. Divination comprehends all the arts and 
ways of discovering secrets, or foretelling future events, not 
knowable by any rules of nature; magic, all the arts of mis- 
chieyous operations by secret and unknown means, which is 
commonly called sorcery, and by the Latins venefictum and 
maleficium, from poisoning and doing mischief; enchantment 
chiefly relates to a pretended skill and power of doing good, as 
of curing diseases by certain charms, and words, and signs, 
and amulets, which has made it the more agreeable to weak 
and superstitious persons, because it has a pretence and show 
of being useful and beneficial to mankind. 

Among the several species of divination, one of the most 
noted and infamous was that of astrology, or the pretence of 
discovering secrets by the position and motion of the stars. 

Men who professed this art are commonly called mathematici, 
drawers of schemes and calculations ; under which name they 


238 The great crimes, XVI. v. 


are condemned in both the Codes2°. And they were infamous 
not only under the Christian administration, but also under 
the old Romans. For there is a law of Diocletian in the 
Justinian Code 3), which allows the art of geometry as an use- 
ful science, but forbids the ars mathematica, the astrologer’s 
art, as a damnable practice. And Tacitus*? says, ‘ there were 
decrees of the senate made in the reign of Tiberius for ex- 
pelling all the astrologers and magicians out of Italy :’ but he 
likewise observes 23, ‘ that they were a sort of men, which were 
always forbidden, and yet always retained. For though they 
were deceitful and fallacious to great men, yet they still had 
an inclination now and then upon occasion to consult them.’ 
Their expulsion out of Italy is also noted by Suetonius +, as 
done twice, in the reigns of Tiberius and Vitellius. Upon 
which Tertullian 25, in a smart and elegant way, tells some 
Christians, who pleaded for a toleration of themselves in the 
profession of this wicked art, ‘ that astrologers were expelled 
out of Italy and Rome as their angels were out of heaven: the 
same penalty of banishment was inflicted on the scholars, as 
had been on their masters before them. Now then the laws 
of the State, both Heathen and Christian, being thus severe 
against them, it was but reasonable that the censures of the 
Church should be as sharp upon them, because they were a 
species of idolaters, and owed the original of their art to the 
invention of wicked angels.’ For this reason the Constitu- 
tions 26 put astrologers into the black list of such as were to be 


20 Cod. Theod. 1. g. tit. 16. de 
Maleficis et Mathematicis. (t. 3. pp. 
113, seqq.) 

“1 L, g. tit. 18. de Maleficis et 
Mathematicis, leg. 2. (t. 4. p. 2373.) 
Artem geometrie discere atque ex- 
ercere publice interest. Ars autem 
mathematica damnabilis est et in- 
terdicta omnino. 

22 Annal. ]. 2. c. 32. (t. 1. p. 156.) 
Facta et de mathematicis magisque 
Italia pellendis senatus consulta ; 

uorum e numero Pituanius saxo 
ejectus est. 

20 Hist: Ua: Ὁ: 22: (tap. 520) 
.... Genus hominum potentibus in- 
fidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in 
civitate nostra et vetabitur semper, 
et retinebitur. 


24 Vit. Tiber. c. 36. (p. 143.) Ex- 
pulit et mathematicos: sed depre- 
cantibus, ac se artem desituros pro- 
mittentibus, veniam dedit. — Vit. 
Vitell. c. 14. (p. 299.) Nullis tamen 
infensior quam vernaculis et ma- 
thematicis, ut quisque deferretur, 
inauditum capite puniebat: exacer- 
batus, quod post edictum suum, 
quo jubebat, intra kalendas Octobris 
urbe Italiaque mathematici excede- 
rent, statim libellus est propositus, 
et Chaldzos dicere [al. edicere], &c. 

25 De Idolol. c. 9. (p. 89 4.) Urbs 
et Italia interdicitur mathematicis, 
sicut cceelum angelis eorum, eadem 
pena est exsilii discipulis et ma- 
gistris. 

26 L. 8. c. 32. (Cotel. v. 1. p. 413.) 


divination, §c. 239 


rejected from baptism, unless they would promise to renounce 
their profession. The first Council of Toledo 27 condemns the 
Priscillianists with anathema for the practice of it. For we 
must know, that the Priscillianists ascribed all to fate and the 
necessary influence of the stars, as St. Austin?> informs us: 
‘They asserted that men were bound to fatal stars, and that 
our bodies were compounded according to the order of the 
twelve signs of the Zodiac, as they who are commonly called 
mathematici, or astrologers, maintain, appointing Aries for 
the head, Taurus for the neck, Gemini for the shoulders, 
Cancer for the breast, and so running through the other signs, 
till they came to the feet, which they attributed to Pisces, 
which is the last sign in the astrologer’s computation.’ Leo in 
one of his Epistles29 gives the same account of them: ‘ They 
maintained that the bodies and souls of men were bound 
to fatal stars, by which folly men were embarrassed in the 
errors of the Pagans, and obliged to worship those stars that 
were favourable to them, and appease those that were against 
them: but they who followed such vanities could have no 
place in the Catholic Church: for he that gives himself to 
such persuasions, is wholly departed from the body of Christ.’ 
Sozomen®*° says, Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, was accused of the 
practice of this art, and forced to fly from his bishopric upon it. 
He gives it indeed another name, calling it apotelesmatical 
astronomy: but that®! signifies the same thing: for there 


Μάγος, ἐπαοιδὸς, ἀστρολόγος, μάντις, 
θηρεπῳδός.... παυσάμενοι... .προσδε- 
χέσθωσαν, μὴ πειθόμενοι δὲ ἀποβαλ- 
λέσθωσαν. 

27 In Regula Fidei contra Pris- 
cillianistas. (t. 2. p.1228 d.) Si quis 
astrologiz vel mathesi existimat esse 
credendum anathema sit. 

23 De Heres. c. 70. (t.8. p. 22 e.) 
Astruunt etiam fatalibus stellis ho- 
mines colligatos, ipsumque corpus 
nostrum secundum duodecim signa 
ceeli esse compositum, sicut hi, qui 
mathematici vulgo appellantur; con- 
stituentes in capite arietem, taurum 
in cervice, geminos in humeris, can- 
crum in pectore; et cetera nomina- 
tim signa percurrentes ad plantas 
usque perveniunt, quas piscibus tri- 
buunt, quod ultimum signum ab 
astrologis nuncupatur. 


29 Ep. gt. al. 93. ad Turibium, 
ce. 11. (CC. τ. 3. p. 1414 6.) Fatali- 
bus stellis et animas hominum, et 
corpora opinantur astringi: per 
quam amentiam necesse est ut ho- 
mines Paganorum erroribus impli- 
cati, et faventia sibi, ut putant, si- 
dera colere, et adversantia studeant 
mitigare. Verum ista sectantibus 
nullus in ecclesia Catholica locus 
est : quoniam, qui se talibus persua- 
sionibus dedit, a Christi corpore to- 
tus abscessit. 

90... ἢ. ¢.'6.. (0.2. θυ, Ate) 
Διεβάλλετο yap ἀσκεῖσθαι τῆς ἀστρο- 
νομίας, ὁ μέρος ἀποτελεσματικὸν κα- 
λοῦσι, φυγὰς ἦλθεν εἰς Λαοδίκειαν, 
Ke Tas 

31 Justin Martyr speaks of the 
telesmata of Apollonius. See Re- 
spons. ad Orthodox. (p. 405 a.) Ei 


240 The great crimes, XVI. v. 


were two parts of astronomy, the one teaching the nature and 
course of the stars, which was a lawful art; and the other the 
secret effects and powers of them in their oppositions, conjunc- 
tions, &c.; which effects were called their apotelesmata, and 
the art itself apotelesmatica, and the practisers of it anciently 
apotelesmatici, as afterwards mathematict and Chaldei. 
Some 33. think also these apotelesmata were little figures and 
images of wax, made by magical art to receive the influence 
of the stars, and used as helps in divination. So that the 
apotelesmatical art was the same in all respects with judicial 
astrology. And therefore Eusebius Emissenus was condemned 
for the practice of it, as an unlawful art, utterly unbecoming 
the character of a Christian bishop. For by the account that 
has been given, it is plain that all such kind of divination was 
looked upon as idolatry and Paganism, as owing its original to 
wicked spirits, and as introducing an absolute fate and neces- 
sity upon human actions, and so taking away all freedom from 
human will, and making God the author of sin: which blas- 
phemies are commonly charged upon this art by the Ancients, 
St. Austin 33, Lactantius 82, Tertullian 85, Eusebius 26, Origen 87, 


Θεὸς ἐστιν Δημιουργὸς καὶ Δεσπότης 
τῆς κτίσεως, πῶς τὰ ᾿Απολλωνίου τε- 
λέσματα ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς κτίσεως 
δύνανται ; 

82 Selden, de Diis Syriis, Syn- 
CAM. ToC. οἱ τ τό τ τ iv.) 2 
p- 288.) [The citation is not expli- 
cit, but the learned Author seems 
to refer to Selden’s remarks on 
the talisman of the Arabians, &c.: 
Certe eadem ipsa τὰ tov ᾿Απολλωνίου 
τελέσματα vocantur in Responsis ad 
Orthodoxos, que Justini nuncupan- 
tur. See n. 31, preceding.—See also 
(p. 285.) what Selden says of the si- 
gillum illud ligneum, which Apuleius 
used to call βασιλεύς. Ep. |—Spen- 
cer, Dissert. 7. de Urim et Thum- 
mim, 1. 5.6.5. Β.. τὸ. Ῥ. 206, [ἐ ae 
Ῥ. ού5.) Minus itaque a vero distare 
credimus eorum sententiam, qui 
imagines hasce futurorum conscias 
ab antiquissimz memorize populis, 
Chaldzis, Syris, A2gyptiis, inventas 
aut usitatas asserunt. Maimonides 
enim imagines istas oracula funden- 
tes apud nominis antiquissimi gen- 
tes, Zabios aut Chaldzos, fidem et 


pretium invenisse refert: Erexerunt 
stellis imagines, soli quidem aureas, 
lune vero argenteas. Deinde sacella 
edificaverunt, imaginesque in illis 
collocarunt, arbitrantes stellarum vi- 
res influere in illas imagines, easque 
intelligendi virtutem habere, homini- 
bus prophetie donum largiri, ac de- 
nique, que ipsis utilia et salutaria 
sunt, indicare. 

33 De Civitat. Dei, 1. 5. c. 1. {δ 7- 
p- 115 b.) ΠῚῚ vero, qui positionem 
stellarum, quodammodo decernen- 
tium qualis quisque sit, et quid ei 
proveniat boni, quidve mali accidat, 
ex Dei voluntate suspendunt, si eas- 
dem stellas putant habere hane po- 
testatem traditam sibi a summa il- 
lius potestate, ut volentes ista de- 
cernant; magnam ccelo faciunt in- 
juriam, in cujus velut clarissimo 
senatu ac splendidissima curia opi- 
nantur scelera facienda decerni ; 
qualia si aliqua terrena civitas de- 
crevisset, genere humano decernen- 
te fuerat evertenda——De Doctrin. 
Christian. 1. 2. c. 21. (t. 3. part. 1. 
p- 32 Ὁ.) Neque illi ab hoc genere 


oo i 


—— 


- 


divination, δ᾽ 6. 941 
and Bardesanes Syrus 28, who wrote particular dissertations 
against it, mentioned by Eusebius, who gives some extracts out 
of them. 

We may note further out of St. Austin 39, that these astrolo- 
gers had sometimes the name of genethliaci, from pretending 
to caleulate men’s nativities by erecting schemes and horo- 
scopes, as they called them, to know what position the stars 
were in at their birth, and thence prognosticate their good or 
bad fortune, or any accidents of their life, by the conjunction 
of the stars they were born under. And because some of 
these pretended to determine positively of the lives and deaths 
of kings, which was reputed a very dangerous piece of treason ; 
therefore the laws of the State were more severe against them, 
even under the Heathen emperors, as Gothofred 10 shows out 
of the ancient lawyers, Ulpian and Paulus: and that was an- 
other reason why the Church thought it proper to animadvert 
upon these with the utmost severity of ecclesiastical censures ; 
as thinking that what the Heathen laws had punished as a 
capital crime, ought not to pass unregarded in the discipline of 


the Christian Church. 


perniciose superstitiones segregandi 
sunt, qui genethliaci propter nata- 
lium dierum considerationes, nunc 
autem vulgo mathematici, vocantur. 
Nam et ipsi quamvis veram stella- 
rum positionem, cum quisque nasci- 
tur, consectentur, et aliquando etiam 
pervestigent: tamen quod inde co- 
nantur vel actiones nostras, vel acti- 
onumeventa predicere, nimis errant, 
et vendunt imperitis hominibus mi- 
serabilem servitutem. 

4 Institut. 1. 2. c. τό. [al. 17.] 
(Ὁ. 1. p. 179.) Eorum [demonum] 
inventa sunt astrologia, et haruspi- 
cina, et auguratio, et ipsa, que di- 
cuntur, oracula, et necromantia, et 
ars magica, &c. 

35 De Idolol. c.9. (p. 89 c.) Ani- 
madvertimus inter artes, etiam pro- 
fessiones quasdam obnoxias idolo- 
latrie. De astrologis ne logquendum 
quidem est. Sed quoniam quidam 
istis diebus provocavit, defendens 
sibi perseverantiam professionis is- 
tius, paucis utar. Non allego, quod 
idola honorat, quorum nomina ccelo 
inscripsit, quibus omnem Dei po- 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI, 


It was this crime that expelled Aquila 


testatem addixit: quod propterea 
homines non putant Deum requi- 
rendum, preesumentes stellarum nos 
immutabili arbitrio agi. Unum pro- 
pono, angelos esse illos desertores 
Dei, amatores foeminarum, prodito- 
res etiam hujus curiositatis, propter- 
ea = damnatos a Deo, &c. 

36 De Preparat. Evangel. 1. 6. ce. 
10, 11. tota. (pp. 273 b, seqq., et 
pp- 281 a, seqq.) 

37 Ap. Euseb. de Preeparat. Evan- 
gel. ubi supr. 

38 Ap. Euseb. ibid. 

89 De Doctrin. Christian. 1. 2. ¢. 
21. See before, n. 33, preceding. 

40 In Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 16. de 
Maleficis et Mathematicis. leg. 2. (t. 
3. p. 116. col. dextr.) Sane Ulpia- 
nus quoque apud auctorem Collatio- 
nis legum Mosaicarum, eos, qui de 
principis salute consuluissent, capite 
punitos, vel qua alia graviore poena 
affectos scribit. Sed et Paulus, 5. 
Sentent. tit. 21. aruspices et czte- 
ros, qui de salute principis et sum- 
ma reipublice responderint, una cum 
eo, qui consuluerit, capite puniri. 


R 


Q42 The great crimes, 


from the Church. For Epiphanius‘! says, ‘he was once a 
Christian; but being incorrigibly bent upon the practice of 
astrology, the Church cast him out: and then he became a 
Jew, and in revenge set upon a new translation of the Bible, 
to corrupt those texts, which had any relation to the coming of 
Christ.’ St. Austin‘? gives a famous instance of an astrologer, 
who being excommunicated for his crimes afterwards became a 
penitent, and was reconciled to the Church by his ministerial 


XVI. v. 


absolution. 


The sum of his crime was this: ‘He taught the 


fatal influence of the stars, that it was Venus that made a man 


commit adultery, and not his own will 


; and that it was Mars, 


and not his own will, that made him commit murder: and that 
if any man was righteous, it was not from God, but from the 


influence of Jupiter, a star so called in the heavens. 


And by 


this art he had defrauded many people of their money; but 
at last he became a convert, and upon his confession and re- 


41 De Mensur. et Ponder. ἢ. 15. 
(t.2. p.171 b.) ‘O οὖν ᾿Ακύλας κατα- 
vuyels τὴν διάνοιαν τῷ Χριστιανισμῷ 
ἐπίστευσεν" αἰτήσας δὲ μετὰ χρόνον 
τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ σφραγίδα, ἐ ἐκομίσατο. 
᾿Απὸ δὲ τῆς πρώτης αὐτοῦ ἕξεως μὴ 
μεταθέμενος, τοῦ πιστεύειν δηλονότι 

τῇ ματαίᾳ ἀστρονομίᾳ, ἢν ἀκριβῶς ἐκ- 
πεπαίδευτο, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέ- 
ραν τὸ θέμα τῆς αὐτοῦ γενέσεως σκε- 
πτόμενος, ἐλεγχόμενός τε ὑπὸ τῶν 
διδασκάλων, καὶ ἐπιτιμώμενος ἕνεκα 
τούτου, μὴ διορθούμενος δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
φιλονείκως μᾶλλον ἀντιτιθέμενος, καὶ 
σπεύδων συνιστᾷν τὰ ἀσύστατα, τὴν 
εἱρμαρμένην δηλονότι, καὶ τὰ περὶ av- 
τῆς διηγήματα, ἐξεώθη πάλιν τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας. ὡς ἄχρηστος πρὸς σωτηρίαν. 
Πικρανθεὶς δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν, ἡ ὡς ἤτιμω- 
μένος, εἰς ὥλον μάταιον αἴρεται" καὶ, 
τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ἀρνησάμενος καὶ 
τὴν αὐτοῦ ζωὴν, προσηλυτεύει καὶ 
περιτέμνεται ᾿Ιουδαῖος, καὶ ἐπιπόνως 
φιλοτιμησάμενος ἐξέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν μα- 
θεῖν τὴν “Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον, καὶ τὰ 
αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα" ταύτην δὲ ἀκρότατα 
παιδευθεὶς ἡ ἡρμήνευσεν, οὐκ ὀρθῷ λο- 
γισμῷ χρησάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως δια- 
στρέψῃ τινὰ τῶν ῥητῶν, ἐνσκήψας 
τὴν τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνείᾳ" 
ἵνα τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐν ταῖς Τρα- 
φαῖς μεμαρτυρημένα ἄλλως ἐκδώσει, 
δὶ ἣν εἶχεν αἰδῶ, εἰς ἄλογον αὐτοῦ 
ἀπολογίαν. 


42 De Mathematico, ad calc. Trac- 
tat. in Ps. 61. (t. 4. ps SOR G.jaeene 
Iste ex Christiano et fideli poenitens 
redit, et territus potestate Domini 
convertitur ad misericordiam Do- 
mini. Seductus enim ab inimico, 
cum esset fidelis, diu mathematicus 
fuit: seductus seducens, deceptus 
decipiens, illexit, fefellit, multa men- 
dacia locutus est contra Deum, qui 
dedit hominibus potestatem faciendi 
quod bonum est, et non faciendi 
quod malum est. Iste dicebat, quia 
adulterium non faciebat voluntas 
propria, sed Venus: homicidium 
non faciebat voluntas propria, sed 
Mars: et justum non faciebat Deus, 
sed Jovis |leg. Jupiter]: et alia mul- 
ta sacrilega non parva. Quam mul- 
tis eum putatis Christianis nummos 
abstulisse ?.... Modo, sicut de illo 
credendum est, horruit mendacium, 
et multorum hominum illectorem : 
se aliquando a Diabolo sensit illec- 
tum, convertitur ad Deum peenitens. 
Putamus, fratres, de magno timore 
cordis accidisse. Quid enim dicturi 
sumus? Namque si ex pagano con- 
verteretur mathematicus, magnum 
quidem esset gaudium: sed tamen 
posset videri, quia si conversus es- 
set, clericatum quereret in ecclesia? 
Poenitens est, non querit nisi solam 
misericordiam. 


ἊΝ 


§ 1, 2. divination, δ᾽ 6. 243, 


pentance was received into the Church again to lay-commu- 
nion, but for ever denied all promotion among the clergy.’ 
By which one instance we may judge of the greatness of 
the crime, and the proceedings of the Church against such 
offenders. 

2. Another sort of divination was that which was called Of uewy 
augury and soothsaying. Which was committed several ways. saying. 
Sometimes by observing several signs and appearances in the 
entrails of the sacrifices, which was properly called haruspicina 
and haruspicium. Sometimes by observations made upon the 
motion, or flying or singing of birds, which was called augury, 
in the strictest sense. Sometimes by remarks made upon the 
voice of men, or their sneezing, which was called an omen, 
and the thing reputed ominous. Sometimes by observing cer- 
tain signs in the figure and lineaments of the body; as in the 
hands, which was called chiromancy ; or in the face and fore- 
head, which was called μετωποσκοπία, or physiognomy ; or in 
the back, called νωτομαντεία, with many other observations of 
the like nature. The old Romans were much given to these 
superstitions, insomuch that they had their colleges of augurs, 
and would neither fight, nor make war or peace, or do any 
thing of moment without consulting them. The squeaking 
of a rat was sometimes the occasion of dissolving a senate, or 
making a consul or a dictator lay down his office 43, as begun 
with an ill omen. Now, though Christianity was a professed 
enemy to all such vanities; yet the remains of such supersti- 
tion continued in the hearts of many after their conversion. 
So that the Church was forced to make severe laws to restrain 
them. The Council of Eliberis‘*4 makes the renunciation of 
this art a condition of baptism, if an augur had a mind to be 
baptized: and if afterward he returned to the practice of it, 
he was to be cast out of the Church. Which is also the rule 
in the Apostolical Constitutions 45, and the Councils of Agde 46, 


43 Vid. Valer. Max. 1 τ. c. 3. 
(Antwerp. 1621. c. I. s. 5. p. 4.) 
Occentus autem soricis auditus Fa- 
bio Maximo dictaturam, Caio Fla- 
minio magisterium equitum depo- 
nendi causam prebuit. 

44 Ὁ. 62. (t. τ. p. 977 Ὁ.) Si au- 
gur aut pantomimi [8]. auriga et 
pantomimus ] credere voluerint, pla- 
cuit, ut prius artibus [al. actibus] 


suis renuntient, et tunc demum sus- 
cipiantur, ita ut ulterius non rever- 
tantur. Quod si facere contra in- 
terdictum tentaverint, projiciantur 
ab ecclesia. 

45 L, 8. c. 32. See before, ch. 5. 
s. I. n. 26, preceding. 

46 C, 42. See afterwards, ἢ. 51, 
following. 


R 2 


244 The great crimes, 


Vannes 47, Orleans 48, and several others. The Constitutions 49 
not only censure astrologers, magicians, and enchanters, but 
also wandering fortune-tellers, augurs, and soothsayers, ob- 
servers of signs and omens, interpreters of palpitations, ob- 
servers of accidents in meeting others, and making divination 
upon them, as upon a blemish in the eye, or in the foot, ob- 
servers of the motion of birds or weasels, observers of voices, 
and symbolical sounds. 

3. And it is observable, that in the French Councils last 
mentioned there is a peculiar sort of augury condemned under 
the name of sortes sacre, divination by holy lots. Which was 
a piece of new superstition grafted upon an old stock, and 
introduced with a more specious show in the room of an Heathen 
practice. For the Heathens were used to divine by a sort of 
lots, which they called Sortes Virgiliane: which was done by 
a casual opening of the book of Virgil, and then the first 
verses that appeared were taken and interpreted into an oracle. 
Thus Spartian 50 says, Hadrian had the empire prognosticated 
to him ‘ by drawing his lots out of Virgil: for the first words 
that appeared, missus in imperium magnum, portended that 
he should become the Roman emperor.’ And so Lampridius®}, 
in the Life of Alexander Severus, says, ‘that emperor also 
understood by this sort of divining-lots out of another verse of 


47 C. 16. See afterwards, n. 52, 51 Vit. Alexand. c. 14. p. 341. 


XVI. v. 


following. 

48 Aurelian. 1. c. 32. See after- 
wards, n. 53, following. 

49. [1 8. Ὁ. 58. ee i. Ta, Cu. 5. 
5. 8.v. 4. p. 88, where the canon is 
cited at length. Ep. |] 

50 Vit. Hadrian. c. 2. p. 5. (int. 


. August. Hist. Scriptor. p. 9.) Quo 


quidem tempore, cum solicitus de 
imperatoris erga se judicio Virgil- 
ianas Sortes consuleret, 
Quis procul ille autem ramis in- 
signis olive, 
Sacra ferens? nosco crines incana- 
que menta 
Regis Romani; primus qui legi- 
bus urbem 
Fundabit, Curibus parvis et pau- 
pere terra, 
Missus in imperium magnum. 
Cui deinde subibit, 
sors excidit, quam alii ex Sibyllinis 
versibus ei provenisse dixerunt. 


(ibid. p. 521.) Ipse autem, cum 
parentis hortatu animum a philo- 
sophia et musica ad alias artes tra- 
duceret, Virgilii Sortibus hujusmodi 
illustratus est : 
Excudent alii spirantia mollius 
era, 
Credo equidem, vivos ducent de 
marmore vultus; 
Orabunt causas melius, ceelique 
meatus 
Describent radio, et surgentia 
sidera ducent [al. dicent] : 
Tu regere imperio populos, Ro- 
mane, memento ; 
He tibi erunt artes, pacisque im- 
ponere morem, 
Parcere subjectis, et debellare su- 
perbos. 
Inerunt multa alia signa, quibus 
principem humani generis esse con- 
staret. 


ee 


§ 3. 


divination, §e. 245 


Virgil. that he should obtain the government of the Roman 
empire. Now many superstitious Christians were of opinion, 
that this sort of divination might be much better made by using 
the Holy Scriptures after the same manner, and to the same 
purpose: and therefore as the Heathen used Virgil, so they 
used the Bible, to learn their fortune by sacred lots, as they 
called them, taking the first passage that presented itself, to 
make their divination and conjecture upon: and it appears 
that some of the inferior clergy, out of a base spirit, and love 
of filthy lucre, encouraged this practice, and made a trade of it 
in the French Church. Whence the Gallican Councils are very 
frequent in the condemnation of it. The Council of Agde 51 
takes notice, ‘that some of the clergy and laity followed after 
soothsaying, to the great detriment of the Catholic religion: 
and under the name of feigned religion, professed the art of 
divination, by what they called the lots of the saints, making 
use of a casual inspection of the Scriptures to divine futurities 
by.’ Itis decreed therefore, ‘that whoever of the clergy or 
laity should be detected in the practice of this art, either as 
consulting or teaching it, should be cast out of the communion 
of the Church.’ This had been decreed about sixty years 
before in the Council of Vannes 53, anno 465, in the very same 
words. And the first Council of Orleans ὅ8, about five years 
after the Council of Agde, repeats the decree with a very little 
variation. But the practice continued for all this: for Gregory 
of Tours *4 says, Kramnus, the son of King Clotharius, con- 


diderit observanda, vel sortes, quas 


51 C, 42. (t. 4. p. 1390 c.) Quod 
mentiuntur esse sanctorum, quibus- 


maxime fidem Catholice religionis 


infestat, [quod] aliquanti clerici sive 
laici student auguriis, et sub nomine 
fictee religionis per eas, quas sanc- 
torum sortes vocant, divinationis 
scientiam profitentur, aut quarum- 
cunque Scripturarum inspectione fu- 
tura promittunt. Hoc quicunque 
clericus vel laicus detectus fuerit vel 
consulere vel docere, ab ecclesia ha- 
beatur extraneus. 

52 C. 16. (ibid. p. 1054 b.) Ac ne 
id fortasse videatur omissum, quod 
maxime fidem Catholice religionis 
infestat, &c. In the same words as 
the foregoing canon. 

%3 C. 32. (ibid. p. 1409 b.) Si 
quis clericus, monachus, vel szcu- 
laris divinationem vel auguria cre- 


cungue putaverint intimandas, cum 
his, qui eis crediderint, ab ecclesie 
communione pellantur. 

54 Hist. Francor. 1. 4. c. 16. (p. 
157 ¢. 4.) Positis clerici tribus h- 
bris super altarium, idest, Prophetiz, 
Apostoli, atque Evangeliorum, ora- 
verunt ad Dominum, ut Chramno 
quid eveniret ostenderet: simulque 
unam habentes conniventiam, ut 
unusquisque in libro quod primum 
aperiebat, hoc ad missas etiam lege- 
ret. Aperto ergo primo omnium 
Prophetarum libro, reperiunt, Au- 
feram maceriem ejus, &c. (Esai. 5, 
5.) Reseratoque Apostoli libro, 
inveniunt, Ipsi enim diligenter scitis, 
fratres, quia dies Domini sicut fur 


246 The great crimes, 


sulted the clergy of Dijon upon some points, and they gave 
him an answer by this sort of divination. 

Some reckon St. Austin’s conversion owing to such a sort of 
consultation: but the thought is a great mistake, and very 
injurious to him, for his conversion was owing to a providential 
call, like that of St. Paul from heaven. He says*> he heard 
a voice he knew not whence, saying, Tolle, lege! Tolle, lege! 
Take up the Bible and read! which he did, and the first 
words he chanced to cast his eye upon were those of St. Paul, 
(Rom. 13, 13 and 14,) “ Let us walk honestly as in the day; 
not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wanton- 
ness, not in strife and envying: but put ye on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts 
thereof.” Which words being apposite to his case, he looked 
upon them as spoken directly to himself, and accordingly 
applied them to his own condition: and so by God’s providence 
they became the means of fixing him in that piety, purity, and 
sobriety, for which he was afterwards so famous in the world. 
Here was nothing of divination in all this; but a seasonable 
application of a proper passage to himself, as he says St. An- 
thony had made of those words of our Saviour, “ Go, sell all 
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have 
treasure in heaven, and come follow me!” [Matth. 19, 21. 
Luke 18, 22.] which he took as an oracle spoken immediately 


XVI. v. 


in nocte veniet, Sc. (τ Thess. 5, 2 et 
3.) Dominus autem per Evangelia 
ait, Qui non audit verba mea, as- 
similabitur viro stulto, &c. (Matt. 
7. 26.) 

09 S Contessa 1: 5. Οὐ Leen (te Le 
p- 156 a.) Ego sub quadam fici 
arbore stravi me, nescio quomodo, 
et dimisi habenas lacrimis, et pro- 
ruperunt flumina oculorum meo- 
rum....(b) Et ecce audio vocem 
de vicina domo cum cantu dicentis 
et crebro repetentis, quasi pueri an 
puellz, nescio, Tolle, lege! Tolle, 
lege! Statimque mutato vultu in- 
tentissimus cogitare ccepi, utrum- 
nam solerent pueri in aliquo genere 
ludendi cantitare tale aliquid; nec 
occurrebat omnino audivisse me us- 
piam. Repressoque impetu lacri- 
marum surrexi, nihil aliud inter- 


pretans nisi divinitus mihi juberi, 
ut aperirem codicem, et legerem 
quod primum caput invenissem.... 
(d) Itaque concitus redii ad eum 
locum, ubi sedebat Alypius: ibi 
enim posueram codicem Apostoli, 
cum inde surrexeram. Arripui, a- 
perui, et legi in silentio capitulum, 
quo primum conjecti sunt oculi mei: 
Non in comessationibus et ebrietati- 
bus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, 
non in contentione et emulatione : 
sed induite Dominum Jesum Chris- 
tum, et carnis providentiam ne fece- 
ritis in concupiscentiis. (Rom. 12, 13 
et 14.) Nec ultra volui legere, nec 
opus erat. Statim quippe cum fine 
hujusce sententia, quasi luce secu- 
ritatis infusa cordi meo, omnes du- 
bitationes tenebre diffugerunt. 


“ον 


divination, §c. 247 


to himself, and they were the occasion of his turning to the 
Lord. As to any other use of the Scripture for divination, 
St. Austin was an enemy to it, and expresses himself against it, 
reflecting on some who used it to that purpose. ‘ As for those,’ 
says he 5, ‘ who divine by lots out of the Gospel, though it be 
more desirable they should do this, than run to ask counsel of 
devils ; yet I am displeased at this custom, which turns the 
divine oracles which speak of things belonging to another life, 
to the business of this world, and the vanities of the present 
life.’ By which it is plain, he looked upon this sort of divin- 
ation as a great abuse of the Gospel, though not so bad as 
going directly to consult devils. 

As for those, which are commonly called divisory lots, there 
is no harm in them when applied to things in our own power ; 
as to dividing of lands by lot, or determining in an army who 
shall first invade the enemy ; or, in time of a plague or perse- 
cution, what ministers shall stay in a city to take care of the 
Church; which is a case particularly mentioned by St. Austin 57, 
and allowed as lawful. So a prince may distribute his punish- 
ments by lot, when he is minded to spare some criminals and 
punish others. And when there are two objects of charity in 
equal circumstances, and we cannot relieve both, St. Austin°§ 
thinks there is no harm in casting lots to determine which of 
them shall have our charity. And there are many other in- 
different cases of the like nature, in which lots may be used 
without any prejudice to religion. And therefore the Church 
never made any laws to forbid or censure them, save only in 
disposing of ecclesiastical offices, and the lives of men, which 
are too sacred to be committed to mere chance or lots without 


56 Ep. 11g. [al. 55.] ad Januar. 
c. 20. (t. 2. p. 143¢.) Hi vero qui 
de paginis evangelicis sortes legunt, 
etsi optandum est, ut hoc potius 
faciant, quam ut ad dzemonia con- 
sulenda concurrant, tamen etiam 
ista mihi displicet consuetudo, ad 
negotia szcularia et ad vite hujus 
vanitatem, propter aliam vitam lo- 
quentia, oracula divina velle con- 
vertere. 

57 Ep. 180. [al. 228.] ad Ho- 
norat. (ibid. p. 834 f.) Que discep- 
tatio, si aliter non potuerint termi- 


nari, quantum mihi videtur, qui ma- 
neant et qui fugiant, sorte legendi 
sunt. 

58 De Doctrin. Christian. 1. 1. 6. 
18. (t. 3. part. 1. p.14 b.)... Si tibi 
abundaret aliquid, quod dari oporte- 
ret ei, qui non haberet, nec duobus 
dari posset, si tibi occurrerent duo, 
quorum neuter alium vel indigen- 
tia, vel erga te aliqua necessitudine 
superaret; nihil justius faceres, quam 
ut sorte legeres, cui dandum esset, 
quod dari utrique non posset. 


248 EVES 


The great crimes, 


some special divine direction, as in the case of Matthias and 
Jonas, which, St. Jerom*? says, ‘are not to be drawn into 
example ; because special privileges cannot make a common or 
general law for all cases: and it is plain, that without such 
special direction lots of that kind will be matter of mere chance, 
or else pure divination. 

4, There were some other ways of divination, far more 
abominable than the former, because they were done by ex- 
press compact with the devil, and always implied his concur- 
rence and assistance. Sometimes he gaye answers by his 
images and idols, which were called oracles. Sometimes by 
speaking in his prophets, whom he possessed, who were called 
Pythonici and Pythonisse, possessed with a familiar, or 
spirit of divination, and ἐγγαστριμύθοι, because they spake 
out of the belly by the navel. Sometimes men used certam 
ceremonies in sleeping in such a posture in a temple, on the 
skins of the sacrifices, &c., to receive his impressions and 
answers by dreams, which was called ὀνειρομαντεία. Some- 
times he gave answers by spectres and appearances from the 
dead, as he did to Saul by the witch of Endor: this they 
properly called necromancy, that is, divination by the dead. 
Sometimes he spake by the skull of a dead man, called κρανιο- 
μαντεία. Sometimes he gave answers by certain signs and 
figures made in the earth, or water, or air, or fire, or a glass, 
or a riddle, and a thousand other ways of imposture, either by 
real appearances, or by deluding the imagination. The names 
of which and the transactions may be seen in Delrio®, or 
Lessius®!, or Du Moulin®2, who treat more particularly of 
them. That which is to our present purpose is only to ob- 
serve, that, as this crime had in it a mixture of idolatry, 
heresy, infidelity, apostasy, sacrilege, hypocrisy, curiosity, and 
ambition; each one of which was an high crime in itself; so 


Of divina- 
tion by ex- 
press com- 
pact with 
Satan. 


59 In Jon. 1. (t. 6. p. 398 d.) Nec 
statim debemus sub hoc exemplo 
sortibus credere, vel illud de Actibus 
Apostolorum huic testimonia copu- 
lare, ubi sorte in apostolatum Mat- 
thias eligitur: cum privilegia singu- 
lorum non possint facere legem 
communem [ἃ]. legem facere. ] 

60 Disquisitiones Magice. See 1. 


I. 6.2. (pp. 3, 5644.) and 1. 4. 6.2. 
8.1. quest. 6. (pp. 534, seqq.) as 
well as s. 2, and the following. 

61 De Jure et Justitia, 1. 2. c. 43. 
dubit. 5. (p. 569.) Quid sit divinatio, 
et queenam ejus species. 

62 Molinzi Vates, 1.3. c.6. ὅτε. 
(pp. 151, seqq.) Varie species, &e. 
De Astrologis, ἄς. De Oraculis, &e. 


§ 4. 


divination, Sc. 249 


the Church was always careful to lay the heaviest censure of 
excommunication upon it. The general name, under which all 
the species of it are condemned, is μαντεία, prophesying or 
divining by Satan’s inspiration. In the Constitutions®™, among 
those that are to be denied baptism, the μάνται, oracle-mongers, 
are particularly specified. And in the Council of Ancyra®, 
‘those that follow after such diviners, of καταμαντευόμενοι, or 
take them into their houses to exercise their wicked arts, are 
to be excluded from communion, and do five years’ penance.’ 
By a law of Constantius in the Theodosian Code, the vates 
and harioli are reckoned among others who practise forbidden 
arts, such as soothsayers, astrologers, augurs, Chaldeans, 
magicians, and both they that use such curious divinations, 
and they that consult them, are condemned to die, as guilty of 


a capital crime and offence against religion. 
Gothofred © observes, that this law is often mentioned with 


63 [L.8. c.32. See before, 8.1. 
n. 26, preceding. See the canon at 
length at b, 11. ch. 5. s.8. v.3. p- 
88.—The term μάνται is scarcely 
correct, μάντιες would perhaps be 
more so from μάντις, which is used 
in the place cited from the Consti- 
tutions, and also in the 72nd canon 
of St. Basil, which is cited in the 
note following, together with the 
61st of the Council of Trullo, after- 
wards in the sixth section, p. 258. 
n. 1. Ep.] 

64 Ὁ. 24. (t. 1. p. 1465 d.) Οἱ κατα- 
μαντευόμενοι, καὶ ταῖς συνηθείαις τῶν 
χρόνων [ἃ]. ἐθνῶν) ἐξακολουθοῦντες, 
ἢ εἰσάγοντές τινας εἰς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν 
οἴκους ἐπὶ ἀνευρέσει φαρμακειῶν, ἢ 
καὶ καθάρσει, ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα πιπτέτω- 
σαν τῆς πενταετίας κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς 
ὡρισμένους, τρία ἔτη ὑποπτώσεως, καὶ 
δύο ἔτη εὐχῆς χωρὶς προσφορᾶς.--- 
Conf. Basil. c. 72. (CC. τ. 2. p. 1352 
[corrige, 1752] e.) ‘O μάντεσιν ἕαυ- 
τὸν ἐπιδοὺς, ἤ τισι τοιούτοις, τὸν χρό- 
νον τῶν φονέων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιτιμηθή- 
σεται. 

6 L.g. tit. 16. de Maleficis et 
Mathematicis, leg. 4. (t. 3. p. 119.) 
Nemo aruspicem consulat aut mathe- 
maticum, nemo hariolum. Augu- 
rum et vatum prava confessio conti- 
cescat. Chaldei ac magi et ceteri, 


quos maleficos ob facinorum magni- 
tudinem vulgus appellat, nec ad hance 
partem aliqui moliantur. Sileat om- 
nibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas. 
Etenim supplicium capitis feret gla- 
dio ultore prostratus, quicunque jus- 
sis obsequium denegaverit. 

66 In loc. (ibid. p. 119.) Sane 
Constantii legem memorat quoque 
Libanius de Vita sua, p. 11. ubi agit 
de Crispinis Heracleotis patruo : 
Ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου τινὸς ὡς ἀληθῶς av- 
θρώπου καὶ πλείω τε θεοῖς ἢ ἀνθρώ- 
mots ὁμιλήσαντος ἐν γῇ" καὶ τοίγε 
νόμος εἶργε, καὶ ἢν ἡ δίκη τῷ τολμῶντι 
θάνατος. Legem, ait, latam adversus 
divinos et vates, qua pena mortis his 
indicta. Eodemque refert Libanii 
locum Orat. 21. ad Theodosium, p. 
393, ubi Juliani nomen loco Con- 
stantii infartum: et poenam ignis 
impositam ibidem testatur. Capi- 
tale igitur id, vetitumque sub Con- 
stantio, ut preter Ammianum Mar- 
cellinum pluribus locis, docet quo- 
que Libanius dicta oratione. Ma- 
mertinus in Grat. Act. ad Julianum, 
et tot Constantii leges adversus id. 
Ammiani Marcellini locus hic inter 
alios sternendus est, quo in Gestis 
anni superioris (id est, A.D. 356)... 
hee de eodem Constantio memorat, 
1,16. p. 72: Superato Marcello, ever- 


250 The great crimes, 


some regret by the Heathen writers, Ammianus Marcellinus, 
Mamertinus, and Libanius, who give some instances of Con- 
stantius’s severity in putting it in execution. Constantine, by 
a former law or two’, had indulged the Heathen in the liberty 
of consulting their augurs, provided they did it in public, and 
never put any questions concerning the state of the common- 
wealth or the life of the prince ; which is noted also by Julius 
Firmicus Maternus in his Books of Astrology ®, written whilst 
he was an Heathen: but Constantius finding great abuses made 
of this permission universally prohibited all such consultations 
under the forementioned penalty of death: which extended 
not only to magicians, but to the harioli and the vates ; the 
former of which waited on the altars to receive their inspi- 
ration from the fumes of the sacrifices, as Tertullian © describes 
them; and the latter, the vates, were those who pretended 
to prophesy by the perpetual motion of an indwelling demon ; 


XVI. v. 


saque Serdica unde oriebatur, in cas- 
tris Augusti per simulationem tuende 
majestatis imperatorie multa et ne- 
fanda perpetrabantur. Nam si quis 
super occentu soricis, vel occursu 
mustele, vel similis signi gratia con- 
suluisset quemquam peritum, aut anile 
incantamentum ad leniendum dolorem 
adhibuisset, (quod medicine quoque 
admittit auctoritas,) reus unde non 
poterat opinari delatus, raptusque in 
judicium, penaliter interibat : et quae 
sequuntur: ubi inter cetera de Ma- 
vortio preefecto-pretorio, in hujus- 
modi negotiis judice seu cognitore 
delegato, agit. Re, inquit, comperta, 
jubetur Mavortius tune prefectus- 
pretorio, vir sublimis constantie, cri- 
men acri inquisitione spectare, juncto 
ad audiendi societatem Ursulo largi- 
tionum comite, severitatis itidem non 
improbande. 

67 Cod. Theod. ibid. leg. i. (p. 
114.) Superstitioni suze servire cu- 
pientes poterunt publice ritum pro- 
prium exercere.—Ibid. leg. 2. (p. 
115.) Qui vero id vobis existima- 
tis conducere, adite aras publicas 
atque delubra, et consuetudinis ve- 
stre celebrate solemnia: nec enim 
prohibemus preterite usurpationis 
officia libera luce tractari. 

68 De Mathesi, sive Astronomia, 


1. 2. c. 33. (p. 44. 6.) Dabis sane re- 
sponsa publice, et hoc interrogaturis 
ante preedicito, quod omnia quidem 
illa [illis], de quibus interrogant te, 
clara sis voce dicturus: ne quid a te 
tale forte queratur, quod non liceat 
nec interrogare nec dicere. Cave, 
ne quando de statu reipublice vel de 
vita Romani imperatoris aliquid in- 
terroganti respondeas. Non enim 
oportet nec licet, ut de statu reipub- 
licee aliquid nefaria curiositate dica- 
mus. Sed et sceleratus atque ani- 
madversione dignus est, si quis in- 
terrogatus de fato dixerit imperatoris, 
quia nec dicere poteris de eo aliquid, 
nec invenire. Scire enim te conve- 
nit, quod et aruspices, quotiescunque 
a privatis interrogati de statu impe- 
ratoris fuerint, et quzrenti respon- 
dere voluerint, exta semper, que ad 
hoc fuerint destinata, ac venarum 
ordines involuta confusione contur- 
bent.... Nunquam nocturnis sacri- 
ficiis intersis, sive illa publica, sive 
privata dicantur, nec secrete cum 
aliquo fabulas conferas, sed palam 
sub conspectu omnium istius divine 
artis exerce disciplinam. 

69 Apolog. c. 23. (p. 22 ἃ. sub 
im.)... Qui aris inhalentes numena 
de nidore concipiunt. 


§ 4, 5: 


divination, Sc. 251 


whom therefore the Latins called fanatici, and the Greeks 
ἐνθουσιασταὶ. and θεόληπτοι, and θεοφορούμενοι, &c., as may be 
seen in Theodoret7°, and Suidas7!, and many others7*. Now, 
because no Christian could practise this art, nor consult those 
that did, without direct communication with devils, therefore 
the civil law made it a capital crime, and the ecclesiastical law 
punished it with the severest censure of excommunication. 

5. Next to the superstition of divination was that of magic 
and sorcery ; which, because it commonly tended to work mis- 
chief, therefore they who gave themselves to it were usually 
termed venefici and malefici, because either by poison or other 
means of fascination they wrought pernicious effects upon 
others. The laws of the Theodosian Code7? frequently brand 
them with this name of malejici. Particularly they are charged 
by Constantine7* as making attempts by their wicked arts 
upon the lives of innocent men, and drawing others by magical 
potions, called philira and pharmaca, to commit uncleanness. 
All such when they are detected are appointed to be put to 


death. Constantius’> charges 


ΠΝ 2 τ, τί. (ν. 3. p. 161. 9.) 
᾿Ενθουσιασταὶ γὰρ καλοῦνται δαίμονός 
τινος ἐνέργειαν ἐκδεχόμενοι, &c. 

71 De voce, Ἔνθους. (t.1. Ρ. 917 
b. 5.) Θεοφορούμενος" ἐνθουσιῶν" συν- 
αλοιφὴ δὲ τοῦ ἔνθεους. 

72 Harmenopulus de Sectis He- 
reticis, n. 18. de Massalianis. (ap. 
Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 1. Ρ. 5378. 9.) 
ἐνν Καλοῦνται δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος 
καὶ ἐνθουσιασταί: δαίμονος γὰρ ἐνέρ- 
γειαν λαβόντες Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου εἶναι 
ταύτην ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. 

73 Lg. ε{Ὁ. τό. de Maleficiis, leg. 
6. (t. 3. p. 124.) Magus vel magicis 
cantaminibus assuetus, qui maleficus 
vulgi consuetudine nuncupatur, &c. 
—Ibid. leg.9.(p.128.) Haruspicinam 
ego nullum cum maleficiorum causis 
habereconsortium judico.—Ibid. leg. 
10. (p. 130.) Nonnulli ex ordine se- 
natorio maleficiorum insimulatione 
atque invidia stringebantur.—Ibid. 
leg. 11. (p. 131.) Quicunque malefi- 
ciorum labe pollutum audierit, &c. 
—Tit.38. de Indulgentiis Criminum, 
leg. 1. (p. 267.) Propter Crispi atque 
Helenz partum omnibus indulge- 
mus, preter veneficos, homicidas, a- 
dulteros.— Ibid. leg. 3. (p. 271.) Ob 


them further with disturbing 


diem Paschz...omnibus, quos rea- 
tus astringit, carcer inclusit, claustra 
dissolvimus : attamen sacrilegus, in 
majestate reus, in mortuos veneficus, 
sive maleficus, adulter, raptor, ho- 
micida, communione istius muneris 
separentur.—Ibid. leg. 4. (p. 273-) 
Pasche celebritas postulat, ut quos- 
cunque nunc egra exspectatio quees- 
tionis, poeneque formido solicitat, 
absolvamus. Decretis tamen veterum 
mos gerendus est, ne temere homi- 
cidii crimen, adulterii foeditatem, ma- 
jestatis injuriam, maleficiorum sce- 
lus, insidias yenenorum raptusque 
violentiam sinamus evadere.— See 
also legg. 6, 7, 8, cited afterwards at 
Choro. set. 

74 Ibid. leg. 3. (t. 3. p. 116.) 
Eorum est scientia punienda, et 
severissimis merito legibus vindi- 
canda, qui magicis accincti artibus, 
aut contra hominum moliti salutem, 
aut pudicos ad libidinem defixisse 
animos detegentur. 

75 Ibid. leg. 5. (t. 3. p. 121.) 
Multi magicis artibus ausi elementa 
turbare, vitas insontium labefactare 
non dubitant, et Manibus accitis 
audent ventilare, ut quisque suos 


Of magical 
enchant- 
ment and 
sorcery. 


252 The great crimes, XVI. ¥. 


the elements, or raising of tempests, and practising abominable 
arts in the evocation of the infernal spirits to assist men in 
destroying their enemies: whom he therefore orders to be 
executed as unnatural monsters, and quite divested of the 
principles of humanity. And it is observable that in all those 
laws of the Christian emperors, which granted indulgence to 
criminals at the Easter-festival7®, the venejici and the malefict, 
that is, magical practisers against the lives of men, are 
always excepted, as guilty of too heinous a crime to be com- 
prised within the general pardon granted to other offenders. 
And according to these measures the laws of the Church were 
strict and severe against all such, under whatever character or 
denomination they were found guilty. The Council of Laodi- 
cea77 condemns them under the name of magicians and en- 
chanters, together with those called mathematici and astrolo- 
gers, ordering all such to be cast out of the Church. The 
Council of Ancyra’® forbids the art under the name of φαρμά- 
κεια, pharmacy, that is, the magical art of inventing and pre- 
paring medicaments to do mischief: and five years’ penance is 
there appointed for any one that receives a magician into his 
house for that purpose. St. Basil’s Canons7? condemn it under 
the same character of pharmacy or witchcraft, and lays thirty 
years’ penance upon it. And the fourth Council of Carthage 80 
censures it under the name of enchantment, joming it with 
augury, and denying communion to all such as follow after 
either ; not to mention what private writers, Origen®!, Ter- 


conficiat malis artibus inimicos: hos, 
quoniam nature peregrini sunt, fe- 
ralis pestis absumat. 

76 Tbid. tit. 38. de Indulgentiis 
Criminum, legg. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 
See before, ch. 4. s. 1. p. 179. nn. 3, 


45 5. 

7 C.36. (t.1. p. 1504 b.) "Ore ov 
δεῖ ἱερατικοὺς ἢ κληρικοὺς, μάγους ἢ 
ἐπαοιδοὺς εἶναι, ἢ μαθηματικοὺς, ἢ ἀσ- 
τρολύγους, ὅτε. 

78 C.24. See before, n. 64, pre- 
ceding. 

79 C. 7. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 188. 
Canonic. Prim.]| (CC. t. 2. p. 1724 
a.) Φαρμακοὶ, καὶ μοιχοὶ, καὶ εἰδωλο- 
λάτραι, τῆς αὐτῆς καταδίκης εἰσὶν 
n&opevor.—C. 65. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 
217. Canonic. Tert.] (ibid. p. 1749 


6.) ‘O γοητείαν ἢ φαρμακείαν ἐξαγο- 
ρεύων, τὸν τοῦ φονέως χρόνον ἐξο- 
μολογήσεται. 

80 C. 80. ((. 2. p.1206 6.) Augu- 
riis vel incantationibus servientem, 
a conventu ecclesiz separandum. 

81 Cont. Cels. 1.7. p. 378. (t.1. 
p- 743 b.)... Οὐ χρὴ θεραπεύειν Sai- 
μονας, ὅστις σέβει Θεόν. Δηλοῦται δὲ 
τὰ περὶ τοὺς δαίμονας καὶ ἐκ τῶν κα- 
λούντων δαίμονας ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀνομαζομέ- 
νοις φίλτροις, ἢ μισήτροις, ἢ ἐπὶ κω- 
λύσεσι πράξεων, ἢ ἄλλων τοιούτων 
μυρίων ἅπερ ποιοῦσιν οἱ δι’ ἐπῳδῶν 
καὶ μαγγανειῶν μεμαθηκότες καλεῖν 
καὶ ἐπάγεσθαι δαίμονας ἐφ᾽ ἃ βούλον- 
ται. Διόπερ ἡ πάντων δαιμόνων θερα- 
πεία ἀλλοτρία ἡμῶν ἐστι, τῶν σεβόν- 
των τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεόν. 


§ 5, 6. 


divination, Se. 253 


tullian’?, Hermes Pastor, and many others have said against 
it: Tertullian particularly observing, that there never was 
a magician or enchanter allowed to escape unpunished in the 
Church. 

6. But there was one sort of enchantment, which many ig- 
norant and superstitious’ Christians, out of the remains of 
Heathen error, much affected: that was the use of charms and 
amulets and spells to cure diseases, or avert dangers and mis- 
chiefs, both from themselves and the fruits of the earth. For 
Constantine had allowed the Heathen, in the beginning of his 
reformation, for some time not only to consult their augurs in 
public, but also to use charms by way of remedy for bodily 
distempers 5’, and to prevent storms of rain and hail from in- 
juring the ripe fruits, as appears from that very law where he 
condemns the other sort of magic that tended to do mischief to 
be punished with death. And probably from this indulgence 
granted to the Heathen many Christians, who brought a 
tincture of Heathenism with them into their religion, might 
take occasion to think there was no great harm in such charms 
or enchantments, when the design was only to do good and not 
evil. However it was, this is certain in fact, that many Chris- 
tians were much inclined to this practice, and therefore made 
use of charms and amulets, which they called periammata 
and phylacteria, pendants and preservatives, to secure them- 
selves from danger and drive away bodily distempers. 

These phylacteries, as they called them, were a sort of amu- 
lets made of ribbons, with a text of Scripture or some other 
charm of words written in them, which they imagined, without 
any natural means, to be effectual remedies or preservatives 
against diseases. Therefore the Church, to root this super- 
stition out of men’s minds, was forced to make severe laws 


82 De Idolol. c.9. (p.go b.) Post remedia humanis quesita corpori- 


Evangelium nusquam invenies aut 
sophistas, aut Chaldzos, aut incan- 
tatores, aut conjectores, aut magos, 
nisi plane punitos. 

83. L. τς vision. 3. n.g. (Cotel. t. 
I. p. 81.)... Malefici quidem venena 
sua in pyxidibus bajulant. 

84 Cod. Theod. lib. 9. tit. 16. de 
Maleficis, leg. 3. (t. 3. p. 116.) Nullis 
vero criminationibus implicanda sunt 


bus, aut in agrestibus locis, ne ma- 
turis vindemiis metuerentur imbres, 
aut ruentis grandinis lapidatione 
quaterentur, adhibita innocenter suf- 
fragia, quibus non cujusque salus 
aut existimatio lederetur, sed quo- 
rum proficerent actus, ne divina 
munera, et labores hominum sterne- 
rentur.—See also n. 67, preceding. 


Of amulets, 
charms, and 
spells to 
cure dis- 
eases. 


254 The great crimes, XVI. v. 


against it. The Council of Laodicea*® condemns ‘ clergymen 
that pretended to make such phylacteries, which were rather 
to be called bonds and fetters for their own souls,’ and orders 
‘all such as wore them to be cast out of the Church.’ St. Chry- 
sostom often mentions them with some indignation. Upon those 
words of the Psalmist, [9, 14.] “I will rejoice in thy salva- 
tion,” says heS®, ‘We ought not simply to desire to be saved, 
and delivered from evil by any means whatever, but only by 
God. And this I say upon the account of those who use en- 
chantments in diseases, and seek to relieve their infirmities by 
other impostures.. For this is not salvation but destruction.’ 
In another place 57, dissuading Christians from running to the 
Jews, who pretended to cure diseases by such methods, he 
tells them, ‘ that Christians are to obey Christ, and not to fly 
to his enemies; though they pretend to make cures, and pro- 
mise you a remedy to invite you to them, choose rather to dis- 
cover their impostures, their enchantments, their amulets, their 
witchcraft: for they pretend to work cures no other way; 
neither indeed do they work them truly at all, God forbid. 
But I will say one thing further, although they did work true 
cures, it were better to die than to go to the enemies of Christ 
and be cured after that manner. For what profit is it to have 
the body cured with the loss of our soul? what advantage, what 
comfort shall we get thereby, when we must shortly be sent 
into everlasting fire?’ He there proposes the example of Job, 
and Lazarus, and the infirm man who had waited at the 


85 C.36. See before, n. 77, pre- 
ceding. 

a lt Belpre al. 15. t. 3. P- 137. 
(t. 5. p. 104.) Οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς μὴ 
πάντως σωθῆναι ζητήσωμεν, μὴ πάντως 
ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῶν δεινῶν παντὶ τρόπῳ, 
ἀλλὰ κατὰ Θεόν. Τοῦτο δὲ “λέγω διὰ 
τοὺς ἐπαοιδαῖς χρωμένους ἐν ταῖς νό- 
σοις, καὶ ἑτέρας μαγγανείας ἐπιζη- 
τοῦντας εἰς παραμυθίαν τῆς ἀρρωστίας" 
τοῦτο γὰρ οὐχὶ σωθῆναί ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀπολέσθαι. 

87 Hom. 6. Sere 8. Savil. 5.] 
cont. Judzos, t. I. BG nities. 
p- 681 b.) Χριστιανοὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ 
καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμὲν, ἵνα τῷ Χριστῷ 
πειθώμεθα, οὐχ ἵνα πρὸς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς 
τρέχωμεν. “Ay δέ τινας θεραπείας 


προτείνηται, καὶ λέγη πρός σε, Ὅτι 
ὑπισχνοῦνται θεραπεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦ- 
το πρὸς αὐτοὺς τρέχω" ἀνακάλυψον 
αὐτῷ τὰς μαγγανείας, τὰς ἐπῳδὰς, τὰ 
περιάμματα, τὰς φαρμακείας" οὐδὲ 
γὰρ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ δοκοῦσι θερα- 
πεύειν, οὐδὲ γὰρ θεραπεύουσι κατὰ 
ἀλήθειαν. μὴ γένοιτο. ᾿Εγὼ δὲ καὶ 
ὑπερβολὴν ποιοῦμαι πολλὴν, καὶ ἐκεῖνο 
λέγω, Ὅτι εἰ καὶ θεραπεύουσιν ἀλη- 
θῶς, βέλτιον ἀποθανεῖν, ἢ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς 
τοῦ Θεοῦ προσδραμεῖν, καὶ τοῦτον 
θεραπευθῆναι τὸν τρόπον. Τί. γὰρ 
ὄφελος, σῶμα θεραπεύεσθαι, τῆς ψυ- 
χῆς ἀπολλυμένης ; τί δὲ κέρδος, ἐν- 
ταῦθά Twos τυγχάνειν παραμυθίας, 
μέλλοντας εἰς τὸ ἀθάνατον παραπέμ- 
πεσθαι mip; 


divination, δ᾽ 6. 255 


Pool of Bethesda thirty and eight years, who never betook 
themselves to any diviner, or enchanter, or juggler, or im- 
postor: they tied no amulets nor plates to their bodies, but 
expected their help only from the Lord; and Lazarus chose 
rather to die in his sickness and sores than betray his religion 
in any wise by having recourse to those forbidden arts for 
cure.’ This he reckons ‘a sort of martyrdom’’, when men 
choose rather to die or suffer their children to die than make 
use of amulets and charms: for though they do not sacrifice 
their bodies with their own hands, as Abraham did his son, 
yet they offer a mental sacrifice to God.’ On the contrary, he 
says, ‘the use of amulets was idolatry, though they that made 
a gain byit offered a thousand philosophical arguments to defend 
it, saying, We only pray to God, and do nothing more; and, The 
old woman that made them was a Christian and a believer, 
with other such like excuses. If thou art a believer, sign 
thyself with the sign of the cross: say, This is my armour, this 
my medicament; besides this I know no other. Suppose a 
physician slould come, and instead of medicines belonging to 
his art should use enchantment only; would you call hima 
physician? no, in no wise: because we see not medicines 
proper to his calling: so neither are your medicines proper to 
the calling of a Christian.’ He adds, ‘ that some women put 
the names of rivers into their charms; and others ashes, and 
soot, and salt, crying out that the child was taken with an evil 
eye, and a thousand ridiculous things of the like nature, which 
exposed Christians to the scorn of the Heathen, many of whom 
were wiser than to hearken to any such fond impostures.’ 
Upon the whole matter he tells them, ‘that if he found any 
henceforward that made amulets or charms, or did any other 
thing belonging to this art, he would no longer spare them ;’ 


88 Hom.8.inColoss. p. 1374. (t. 11. 
p- 586 6.) Πάλιν € ἐνόσησεν: οὐκ ἐποίησε 
περίαπτα" μαρτύριον αὐτῇ λογίζεται" 
κατέθυσε yap τὸν υἱὸν τῇ γνώμῃ. Tf 
yap ei καὶ μηδὲν ὠφελεῖ ἐκεῖνα, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀπάτης ἐστὶ καὶ χλεύης 5 ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως 
ἦσαν οἱ πείθοντες, ὅτι ὠφελεῖ: καὶ 
εἵλετο μᾶλλον νεκρὸν τὸ παιδίον ἰδεῖν, 
ἢ εἰδωλολατρίας ἀνασχέσθαι"... μᾶλ- 
λον δὲ ἤδη ἐποίησε τὸ τῆς θυσίας. 
Τὰ γὰρ περίαπτα, κἂν μυρία φιλοσο- 
φῶσιν οἱ ἐκ τούτων χρηματιζόμενοι, 


λέγοντες ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν καλοῦμεν, καὶ 
οὐδὲν πλέον ποιοῦμεν, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, 
καὶ Χριστιανή ἐστιν ἡ γραῦς καὶ πιστὴ, 
εἰδωλολατρεία τὸ πρᾶγμά ἐστι. Teor 
εἶ; σφράγισον' εἰπὲ, Τοῦτο ἔχω τὸ 
ὅπλον μόνον, τοῦτο τὸ φάρμακον' 
ἄλλο δὲ οὐκ οἶδα. Εἰπέ μοι, ἐὰν 
προσελθὼν ἰατρὸς, καὶ τὰ τῆς ἰατρικῆς 
φάρμακα ἀφεὶς, eddy, | τοῦτον ἰατρὸν 
ἐροῦμεν ; οὐδαμῶς, τὰ γὰρ τῆς ἰατρικῆς 
οὐκ ὁρῶμεν φάρμακα" οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐν- 
ταῦθα τὰ τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ. 


XVI. v. 


256 The great crimes, 


meaning that they should feel the severity of ecclesiastical 
censure for such offences. In other places 39 he complains of 
women that made phylacteries of the Gospels to hang about 
their necks. And the like complaints are made by St. Basil % 
and Epiphanius?!. Which shows that this piece of super- 
stition of trying to cure diseases without physic was deeply 
rooted it the hearts of many Christians. 

The Church indeed often cured diseases without physic, but 
then it was in the same way that she dispossessed devils, and 
wrought many miracles for the good of the world by the 
power of Christ and invocation of his name. ‘ She did nothing,’ 
as Irenzus % says, ‘ by invocation of angels, or enchantment, 
or any other curiosity, but by directing her prayers pure and 
clean and openly to the God that made all things; and by 
invocating the name of the Lord Jesus Christ she wrought 
miracles for the benefit of men,-and not for their seduction.’ 
This was the difference between heretics and the Church: 
heretics commonly made use of enchantment, as is noted par- 
ticularly by Ireneus concerning the Basilidians®, who had 
their images, which they used as amulets, having the name 
of abraxas or abracadabra, or as Baronius % thinks, the 
names of their three hundred and sixty-five heavens, answer- 
ing to the like number of members in human bodies. written 


89 Hom. 73. [Bened. 72. al. 78:1 
in Matth. p. 627. ({-7. Ρ. 795 Di)". 5 
“A φυλακτήρια ἐκάλουν" ὡς πολλαὶ νῦν 
τῶν γυναικῶν Εὐαγγέλια τῶν τραχή- 
λων ἐξαρτῶσαι ἔχουσι. 

90 In Ps. 45. p. 229. (t. 1. part. 1. 
Pp: 244¢. n. 2.). .Ὅταν ἐν ταῖς θλίψε- 
σιν ἐπὶ πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν 
τρέχωμεν. Νοσεῖ τὸ παιδίον ; καὶ σὺ 
τὸν ἐπαοιδὸν περισκοπεῖς, ἢ τὸν τοὺς 
περιέργους χαρακτῆρας τοῖς τραχήλοις 
τῶν ἀναιτίων νηπίων περιτιθέντα ; 3 
Ἔτσ A. 

91 Her. 15. Scribee, que est secun- 
da Judaismi secta, (t. 1. p. 32.) [The 
passage referred to contains no al- 
lusion to women wearing charms, 
but speaks of the phylacteries of the 
Scribes :—Kal φυλακτήρια παρ᾽ ἑαυ- 
τοῖς ἐπὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ἐπετίθετο, τουτέστι 
πλατέα σήματα πορφύρας. Νομίσειε 
δ᾽ ἄν τις, ἐπειδήπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ Evay- 


γελίῳ τούτῳ []ερ. τοῦτο] ἐμφέρεται, 
μὴ ἄρα [περὶ] περιάπτων λέγει" ἐπει- 

ὴ γὰρ καὶ εἰώθασί τινες τὰ περίαπτα 
φυλακτήρια ὀνομάζειν" οὐκ ἔχει δὲ 6 
λόγος τὸ παράπαν περὶ τούτου. Ep. } 

52 L. 2. 6. 57. (p. 189. 8.) Nec 
invocationibus angelicis facit, nec 
incantationibus, nec reliqua [al. ali- 
qua] prava curiositate, sed munde 
et pure et manifeste orationes diri- 
gens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit ; 
et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi 
invocans, virtutes secundum utilita- 
tes hominum, sed non ad seductio- 
nem perficit. 

9 L. 1. ὁ. 23. (Ρ. 98. 20.) Utuntur 
hi magia et incantationibus et invo- 
cationibus et reliqua universa peri- 
ergia, &c. 

94 An. 120. ἢ. το. [nn. 13, 14, 15-] 
(t. 2. p. 65 d.) Ad quod manifeste 
probandum, &e. 


divination, δ᾽ 6. 257 


upon them. And St. Austin complains, ‘ that some of Satan’s 
instruments, who professed the exercise of these arts, were 
used to set the name of Christ before their ligatures and 
enchantments and other devices to seduce~Christians, and 
induce them to take the venomous bait under the covert of 
a sweet and honey-potion, that the bitter might lie hid under 
the sweet, and make men drink it without discerning to their 
destruction.’ To such he gives this advice, to seek Christ only 
in the way which he has appointed: ‘ When we are afflicted 
with pains in our head, let us not run to enchanters and 
fortune-tellers and remedies of vanity. I mourn for you, my 
brethren: for I daily find these things done. And what shall 
Ido? I cannot yet persuade Christians to put their trust only 
. in Christ. With what face can such a soul go unto God that 
has lost the sign of Christ, and taken upon him the sign of the 
Devil? In another place he bids them, ‘ when they are sick, 
receive the body and blood of Christ, and anoint themselves 
with that unction which may prove beneficial both to body and 
soul. For when they may have a double advantage in the 
Church, why should miserable men endeavour to bring upon 
themselves such multiplicity of evils by running to enchanters, 
and fountains, and trees, and diabolical phylacteries, and cha- 
racters, and soothsayers, and diviners, and fortune-tellers ἰῇ 
He mentions many other superstitions of the like nature, 
which were the remains of Heathenism, such as the sacri- 
legious custom used about the hind, their crying out when 
the moon was eclipsed to defend themselves from witchcraft, 
their keeping Thursday holiday in honour of Jupiter; con- 
cerning all which he concludes, that they who still continued 
to follow such vanities ought to be reproved by their fellow 


% Tractat. 7. in Ioan. t.g. p. 27. 
fm. part. 2. p. 344 b.)..... Qui 
seducunt per ligaturas, per precan- 
tationes, per machinamenta inimici, 
miscent przcantationibus suis no- 
men Christi: quia jam non possunt 
seducere Christianos, ut dent vene- 
num, addunt mellis aliquid [al. ali- 
quantum], ut per id, quod dulce est, 
lateat quod amarum est, et bibatur 
ad sea 

Serm. 215. de Temp. [4]. Serm. 
265. append. ] (t.5. append. p. 309c.) 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


Quoties aliqua infirmitas superve- 
nerit, corpus et sanguinem Christi 
ille, qui egrotat, accipiat; et inde 
corpusculum suum unguat, ut illud, 
quod scriptum est, impleatur in eo, 
Infirmatur aliquis, inducat presby- 
teros, et orent super eum, unguentes 
eum oleo; et oratio fideis alvabit in- 
jirmum, et allevabit eum Dominus : 
et, si in peccatis sit, dimittentur ei. 
Videte, fratres, quia qui in infirmi- 
tate ad ecclesiam cucurrerit, et cor- 
poris sanitatem recipere, et peccato- 


5 


258 The great crimes, XVI. v. 


Christians 957, and if after that they did not amend their ways, 
they should thenceforward banish them from all society, both 
in eating and conversation. Some think this Homily rather 
belongs to Czsarius Arelatensis; and if so, it only shows that 
this crime prevailed among some in France, as it did for many 
ages after: which appears from the Capitulars of Charles the 
Great 98, where decrees were made against calculators, en- 
chanters, and tempestarians as they are called, that is, raisers 
of storms and tempests, and obligators or makers of phy- 
lacteries to bind about the neck. Who are also noted and 
condemned in the Council of Rome 99, under Gregory {Π, 
anno 721, and in the Council of Trullo', which ‘ forbids any 
one to consult diviners, or those called centenarii, or any such, 
to discover secrets, under the penalty of six years’ penance, 
according to the rules of the ancient Fathers.’ And the same 
penalty is imposed upon those who carry about she-bears, πρὸς 
παίγνιον, to the delusion and hurt of the people, and use the 
words fortune, and fate, and genealogy, and such like names, 
to impose upon the simple. Also all observers of the clouds, 
and jugglers, and makers of phylacteries 2, and diviners, per- 


rum indulgentiam merebitur obti- 
nere. Cum ergo duplicia bona pos- 
sint in ecclesia inveniri, quare per 
precantatores, per fontes et arbores 
et diabolica phylacteria, per charac- 
teres et haruspices et divinos vel 
sortilegos, multiplicia sibi mala mi- 
seri homines conantur inferre ?— 
Vid. de Doctrin. Christian. 1. 2. ¢. 
20. See afterwards, s. 8. p. 267. 
Nn. 20. 

97 [bid. (p. 438 b.) .... Quoscun- 
que tales esse cognoveritis, duris- 
sime castigate. Et si emendare no- 
luerint, nec ad colloquium, nec ad 
convivium vestrum eos venire per- 
mittite. 

98 Capitul. Aquisgran. 1. 1. ¢. 64. 
(CC. t. 7. p.984 d.) Calculatores, 
incantatores, nec tempestarii, vel 
obligatores non fiant: et ubicunque 
sunt, vel emendentur vel damnen- 
tur. 

9 Ὁ, 12. (t.6. p. 1457 Ὁ.) Si quis 
hariolos, aruspices, vel incantatores 
observaverit, aut phylacteriis usus 
fuerit, anathema sit.—Vid. Capitul. 


Martin. Bracarens. c. 72. (CC. t. 5. 
p- 913 6.) Non liceat Christianis 
tenere traditiones Gentilium, et ob- 
servare vel colere elementa, aut 
stellarum cursum, et inanem signo- 
rum fallaciam pro domo facienda. 
Scriptum est enim: Omnia que 
facitis aut in verbo, aut in opere, 
omnia in nomine Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi facite, gratias agentes 


60. 

1 Ὁ. 61. (t. 6: p. 1170 €.) Oi 
μάντεσιν ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιδιδόντες, ἢ τοῖς 
λεγομένοις ἑκατοντάρχαις, ἤ τισι τοι- 
οὕτοις, ὡς ἂν παρ᾽ ἐκείνων μάθοιεν, εἴ 
τι ἂν αὐτοῖς ἐκκαλύπτεσθαι βούλοιντο, 
κατὰ τὰ πρῴην ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων περὶ 
αὐτῶν ὁρισθέντα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα πιπ- 
τέτωσαν τῆς ἑξαετίας. 

2 Ibid. (c.) Τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ τούτῳ 
ἐπιτιμίῳ καθυποβάλλεσθαι δεῖ καὶ 
τοὺς τὰς ἄρκτους ἐπισυρομένους, ἢ 
τοιαῦτα ζῶα. πρὸς παίγνιον καὶ βλά- 
Bnv τῶν ἁπλουστέρων᾽ καὶ τύχην, καὶ 
εἱμαρμένην, καὶ γενεαλογίαν, καὶ τοι- 
οὕτων τινῶν ῥημάτων ὄχλον κατὰ τοὺς 
τῆς πλάνης λήρους φωνοῦντας. Τούς 


§ 6. 


divination, Se. 259 


sisting in their heathenish and pernicious practices, are ordered 
to be cast out of the Church : for “ What communion,” says the 
Apostle, “hath light with darkness? and what agreement hath 
the temple of God with idols? and what part hath he that 
believeth with an infidel? and what concord hath Christ with 
Belial?” [2 Cor.6,14,15.] It is plain from this, there were 
still some remains of heathenish superstition and idolatry 
among Christians, especially in the use of phylacteries and 
divining, and other such vain observations. But it is hard 
to guess what are meant by centurions, who are here joined 
with diviners, and forbidden to be consulted. 

There is a law of Honorius in the Theodosian Code ?, which 
Gothofred thinks may give a little light to this canon. For 
there the chiliarche and centenarii, captains of thousands, 
and captains of hundreds, are plainly spoken of as leaders of 
the people, and managers in ordering the idolatrous pomps of 
the Gentiles; being joined with the frediani and dendrophori, 
which he shows to be those officers in the pomp who carried 
the images of the gods on their shoulders in procession. They 
were the chief of certain corporations or companies, who are 
mentioned in another law of Honorius, under the names of 
collegiati and vituriarii or didumarii, the officers of Apollo 
Didumeeus ; and nemesiaci, the officers of the goddess NVeme- 
sis, Good Fortune and the dispenser of fate; and signifert 
and cantabrarii*, who carried the ensigns and banners of 
their gods in their pomps and games and festivals. And these, 
as Gothofred * shows, out of Commodianus ®, a Christian poet, 


τε λεγομένους νεφοδιώκτας, καὶ γοη- 
τευτὰς, καὶ φυλακτηρίους, καὶ μάντεις" 
ἐπιμένοντας δὲ τούτοις καὶ μὴ μετατι- 
θεμένους καὶ ἀποφεύγοντας τὰ ὀλέθρια 
ταῦτα καὶ Ἑλληνικὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα, 
παντάπασιν ἀπορρίπτεσθαι τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας ὁρίζομεν, καθὰ καὶ οἱ ἱεροὶ 
κανόνες διαγορεύουσι᾽ Tis yap κοινω- 
via φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος: K.T.X. 

3 L. τό. tit. το. de Paganis, leg. 
20. (t. 6, p. 291.) Chiliarchas insuper 
et centenarios, vel qui sibi plebis dis- 
tributionem usurpare dicuntur, cen- 
suimus removendos. 

4 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. 14. tit. 7. 
de Collegiatis, leg. 2. (t.3. p. 192.) 
Collegiatos et vituriarios et neme- 


siacos, signiferos, cantabrarios, et 
singularum urbium corporatos, si- 
mul forma precipimus revocari. 
5 In loc. (ibid. p. 193.) Ex his 
Commodiani verbis colligimus, &c. 
6 Instruct. ad calc. Cyprian. Ed. 
Rigalt. (ap. Galland. t. 3. p. 627 b.) 
Mane ebrio, crudo, perituro, creditis 
viro 
Ex arte qui ficte loquitur, quod illi 
videtur...... 


audet...... 
Vertitur a se rotans cum ligno bi- 
furci, 
Ac si putes illum affatum numine 
ligni. 
5.2 


260 XVL v. 


pretended to divine and tell fortunes, as inspired by the gods: 
and they incorporated others into these colleges as principal 
officers in these pomps; whence they were called chiliarche 
and hecatontarche, captains of thousands, and captains of 
hundreds. All which agrees with the canon of the Council of 
Trullo, which jos the hecatentarche with the vates or 
diviners, and makes them fortune-tellers, talking much of 
fortune and fate, and genealogies or nativities, to deceive the 
people. They who carried about she-bears or other animals, 
Balsamon? says, were such impostors as pretended that the 
hairs of those bears, or toys tied to them, were remedies 
against witchcraft. And so the Council forbids all these ways 
of making and using charms and amulets, as the relics of 
Heathen superstition, still remainimg among the weaker and 
baser sort of Christians. 

I have been the more curious in searching into the true 
meaning of this canon, because it is passed over in silence 
by most commentators, and the reader with me must own 


himself beholden to the learned Gothofred for the explication 
of it. 


The great crimes, 


Of the | 7. There is another sort of impostors mentioned in the same 
ee canon under the name of yoyrevral, which is a general name 
miracles, for all that use tricks and impostures; but here it is taken in 
wrought by ‘ ἘΠ ΈΣΩΣῚ f h terete Pa 
the power 2 more restrained sense, for such as pretended to work mira- 
of Satan. 


cles by the power of magic, such as Jannes and Jambres 
among the Egyptians, and Simon Magus among the Jews, and 
Apollonius Tyanzus and other impostors among the Gen- 
tiles. They are otherwise called θαυματοποιοὶ and ψηφάδες, 
by the Greeks 8, and prestigiatores by the Latin writers 9, 


_ 7 [In C. Trull. c. 61. ap. Bevereg. 
Pandect. t.1. p. 228 b. (Oper. Bal- 


ποιοῦσι οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ψήφων τὰς ἐπω- 
νυμίας ἔχοντες. --- Athanas. Quest. 


sam. p. 432 a.) “Apkrous ἐπισύρειν 
λέγονται οἱ καλούμενοι ἀρκτοτρόφοι" 
οἵ τινες βάμματα ἐξαρτῶσι κατὰ τῆς 
κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ ὅλου σώματος τοῦ 
ζώου, καὶ τρίχας κείροντες ἐκ τούτου, 
διδόασιν ταύτας σὺν τοῖς βάμμασιν, 
ὡς φυλακτήρια, καὶ ὡς δυναμένας λυ- 
σιτελεῖν ἐν νόσοις καὶ ἐν βασκάνοις 
ὀφθαλμοῖς. Grischov. | 

8 Theodoret. in 2 Thess. 2. 9. (t. 
3. part I. p.553-) Οὐκ ἀληθῆ θαύματα 


124. ad Antioch. (t. 2. Ῥ- 245 d. ) οἱ 
λεγόμενοι ψηφάδες, καὶ πάλιν αὐτὸς 
ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἐρχόμενος, ἐν ᾿ φαντασίᾳ 
πλανᾷ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώ- 
mov.—Suidas, voce Ψηφολόγοι. (t. "Ἢ 
θ: 1172 ¢. 4.) Ψηφολόγοι εἰσὶν οἱ ψο- 
φοπαΐῖκται" ψηφολογικοὶ γοῦν, οἱ πλα- 
νῶντες καὶ ἀπατῶντες, ὥσπερ οἱ ψη- 
φολόγοι, τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῷ τάχει 
τῆς μεταθέσεως τῶν ψήφων ἀπατῶν- 
τες, cuvapratovor.—Capitul, Aquis- 


§ 7. 


_ divination, Se. 261 


Their tricks were chiefly shown in making false appearances 
of things, and imposing upon men by the delusion of the out- 
ward senses. The ancient author of the Recognitions !° de- 
scribes their art in the person of Simon Magus, whom he 
brings in giving himself this vain-glorious character : ‘ I can 
make myself disappear to those that would apprehend me, and 
again, I can appear when I please; when I am minded to fly, 
I can pass through mountains and stones, as through the mire; 
when I cast myself headlong from a precipice, I am carried as 
if I were sailing to the earth without harm; when I am bound, 
I can loose myself, and bind them that bound me; when I am 
close shut up in prison, I can cause the doors to open of their 
own accord; I can give life to statues, and make them appear 
as living men; I can make trees grow suddenly out of the 
earth, and raise up plants in a moment; I can throw myself 
into the fire, and not be burnt; I can change my countenance, 
so as not to be known; yea, I can show myself with two faces 
unto men: I can make myself a sheep or a goat; I can give 


gran. ]. 1. c. 64. (CC. t. 7. p. 984 d.) 
Calculatores, incantatores, tempes- 
tarii, &c. [The word ψηφὰς is not 
found in the Lexicons: except that 
in the later edition of Stephanus, 
(Lond. 1826—28. v. το. col. 10,875.) 
it is noticed thus *¥ndas, Lex. 
MS. Hafn. ψηφὰς, ὀφθαλμοπλάνος, 
prestigiator, Athan. 2, 312. Neither 
is the word noticed in Dean Gais- 
ford’s new edition of Suidas. (Oxon. 
1834. t. 2. col. 3955.) Ψηφολόγος 
seems the proper classical expres- 
sion. See ibid. or the old edition 
of Suidas as cited just above. See 
more in Stephanus (ibid. col. 10,864.) 
at the words Ψψηφοδέτης, ψηφολόγος, 
and ψηφοπαίκτης. Ep. } 

9 | Vid. Lexic. Facciolat. et For- 
cellin. in voc. (Patav. 1830. t. 3. p. 
665.) Giocolare, impostore, carat- 
tiere, θαυματοποιὸς, ψηφοπαίκτης, 

ui celeritate lusitandi, et ludibria 
illa oculorum factitandi, ita pre- 
stringit visum intuentium, ut mira- 
cula facere credatur: seu qui cir- 
cumstantibus ita oculorum aciem 
reestringi, tut non advertant dolum. 
laut. Pon. 5. 3. 6. Prestigiator 
hic quidem Penus probw’ est.—Se- 


nec. Ep. 45. circa med. Quomodo 
prestigiatorum acetabula, et calculi, 
in quibus fallacia ipsa delectat, §c. 
Ep. 

10 L, 2.n.9. (Cotel. v. 1. p. 506.) 
Possnm enim facere, ut volentibus 
me comprehendere non appaream, et 
rursus volens videri, palam sim: si 
fugere velim, montes perforem, et 
saxa quasi lutum pertranseam: si 
me de monte excelso precipitem, 
tanquam subvectus ad terras illzesus 
deferar: vinctus memet ipsum sol- 
vam: eos vero, qui me in vincula 
injecerint, vinctos reddam: in car- 
cere colligatus, claustra sponte pate- 
fieri faciam: statuas animatas red- 
dam, ita ut putentur ab his, qui 
vident, homines esse: novas arbores 
subito oriri faciam, et repentina vir- 
gulta producam : in ignem memet- 
ipsum injiciens, non ardeam: vul- 
tum meum commuto, ut non agnos- 
car: sed et duas facies habere me 
possum hominibus ostendere: ovis 
aut capra efficiar: pueris parvis 
barbam producam: in aérem vo- 
lando invehar: aurum plurimum 
ostendam : reges faciam eosque de- 
jiciam, 


XVI. v. 


262 The great crimes, 


little children a beard; and fly in the air; I can show much 
gold, or turn lead into gold; I can set up kings, and dethrone 
them at pleasure.’ Now Tertullian 1! observes, that Simon 
Magus, for these juggling practices and miracles belonging to 
his profession, was anathematized by the Apostles, and cast off 
as an alien from the faith. And all such sophisters, as he 
terms them, had ever the same fate from the beginning οἵ the 
Gospel. Which observation of Tertullian’s is most certainly 
true, and might be confirmed by abundance of instances in 
ancient story; and especially of heresiarchs, or founders of 
new heresies, who pretended commonly to work miracles and 
wonders to gain a reputation to their novel opinions. I will 
only mention one or two that were famous in this kind. 

The heretic Marcus, the father of the Marcosians, is thus 
described by an ancient author, who wrote before the time of 
Trenxus 12, in these words: “Ὁ Marcus, thou idol-maker and 
wonder-worker, empiric in astrology and art of magic, by which 
thou dost propagate thy seducing doctrines, making a show of 
signs and miracles to them that are led into error by thee; 
the works of the apostate power; which Satan thy father 
enables thee to do by the angelical power of Azazel, using 
thee as the forerunner of the antichristian deceit.’ And 
freneus 18. himself takes notice of one of his juggling tricks, 


11 De Idolol. c. 9. (p. go b.) Ex- 
inde et Simon Magus jam fidelis, 
quoniam aliquid adhue de circula- 
toria secta cogitaret, ut scilicet inter 
miracula professionis suze etiam 
Spiritum Sanctum per manuum im- 
positionem enundinaret, maledictus 
ab Apostolis de fide ejus est...... 
Et post Evangelium nusquam in- 
venias sophistas,....... nisi plane 
punitos. 

12 L, τ. 6. 12. (p. 76. 3.) 

Εἰδωλοποιὲ, Μάρκε, καὶ τερατο- 

σκόπε, 

᾿Αστρολογικῆς ἔμπειρε καὶ μαγι- 

κῆς τέχνης, 

Δί ὧν κρατύνεις τῆς πλάνης τὰ 

διδάγματα, 

Σημεῖα δεικνὺς τοῖς ὑπό σου πλα- 

νωμένοις, 
᾿Αποστατικῆς δυνάμεως 
ματα, 


ἐγχειρή- 


“A σὺ χορηγεῖς, ὡς πατὴρ Σατανᾶ 

εἶ, 

Ae ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως [ἐγχειρή- 

ματα] ᾿Αζαζὴλ ποιεῖν, 

Ἔχων σε πρόδρομον ἀντιθέου παν- 

ουργίας. 
[Another and better reading of the 
sixth line, which the translation in 
the text, as well as Grabe’s version, 
seems to favour, is thus,— 

“A σὸς χορηγεῖ, ὡς πατὴρ, Σατὰν 

αει. 
See Grabe, n. in loc. referring to 
Billius and Petavius. Ep.] 

3 LL, 1. c.g. (Ρ. 57+ 1.) Ποτήρια 
οἴνῳ κεκραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχα- 
ριστεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν 
λόγον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ 
ἐρυθρὰ “ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ" ὡς δοκεῖν 
τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ 
ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν τῷ ἐκείνῳ ποτηρίῳ 
διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ. 


263 


divination, &§c. 


which was, that when he pretended to consecrate the eucharist 
in a cup of wine and water, he made it appear of a purple and 
red colour, by a long prayer of invocation, that it might be 
thought the grace from above distilled the blood into the cup 
by his invocation. Such another imposture is mentioned by 
Firmilian in his Letter to Cyprian 13, where he speaks of ‘a 
woman who pretended to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, but 
was really acted by a diabolical spirit, by which she counter- 
feited ecstasies, and pretended to prophesy, and wrought many 
wonderful and strange things, and boasted that she would 
cause the earth to move. Not that the Devil has so great 
power, either to move the earth, or shake the element by his 
command ; but the wicked Spirit foreseeing and understanding 
that there will be an earthquake, pretends to do that which he 
foresees will shortly come to pass. And by these lies and 
boastings the Devil subdued the minds of many to obey him, 
and follow him wheresoeyer he was pleased to command or 
lead them. And he made that woman walk barefoot 
through the snow in the depth of winter, and feel no 
trouble or harm by running about after this fashion. But at 
last, after having played many such pranks, one of the exor- 
cists of the Church discovered her to be a cheat, and showed 
that it was a wicked spirit, which before was thought to be the 
Holy Ghost.’ 


14 Ep. 75. ad Cyprian. p. 222. (p. 
323.) Emersit. . subito quedam mu- 
lier, que in extasi constituta pro- 
pe se preferret, et quasi Sancto 

piritu plena sic ageret...Mirabilia 
quedam ac portentosa perficiens, et 
facere se terram moveri polliceretur. 
Non quod demoni tanta esset po- 
testas, aut terram movere aut ele- 
mentum concutere jussu valeret; 
sed quod nonnunquam spiritus ne- 
quam presciens et intelligens terre 
motum futurum, id se facturum esse 
simularet, quod futurum videret. 
Quibus mendaciis et jactationibus 
subegerat mentem singulorum, ut 
sibi obedirent, et quocunque pre- 
ciperet et duceret, sequerentur: fa- 
ceret quoque mulierem illam cruda 
hieme nudis pedibus per asperas 
Nnives ire, nec vexari in aliquo aut 
ledi in illa discursione: diceret e- 


tiam se in Judzeam et Hierosolymam 
festinare, fingens tanquam inde ve- 
nisset. Hic et unum de presby- 
teris rusticum, item et alium diaco- 
num fefellit, ut eidem mulieri com- 
miscerentur, quod paullo post de- 
tectum est. Nam subito apparuit 
illi unus de exorcistis, vir probatus 
et circa religiosam disciplinam bene 
semper conversatus, qui exhorta- 
tione quoque fratrum plurimorum, 
qui et ipsi fortes ac laudabiles in 
de aderant, excitatus, erexit se con- 
tra illum spiritum nequam revin- 
cendum, qui subtili fallacia etiam 
hoc paullo ante predixerat, yontu- 
rum quendam aversum et tentato- 
rem infidelem. Tamen ille exorcista 
inspiratus Dei gratia fortiter restitit, 
et esse illum nequissimum spiritum, 
ui prius sanctus putabatur, osten- 
it. 


264 The great crimes, 


There are many other such instances in the history of the 
Montanists and Pepuzians, and the Apellians, and Severians, 
mentioned by St. Austin 15 and other writers 1°: but these are 
sufficient to show what pretences were commonly made by 
heretics to the power of working miracles, which the Church, 
apprehending them to be wrought by the power of Satan, and 
not by the Holy Spirit, rejected as impostures, and punished 
the pretenders with the severest of her censures. For so Eu- 
sebius 17. out of Apollmaris particularly tells us of the Mon- 
tanists, that their new prophecies being judged impious and 
profane, their doctrine was condemned and the authors ex- 
pelled from the communion of the Church as enthusiasts and 
demoniacs, who were already excluded from the participation 
of the holy mysteries, whilst they remained under the power 


XVI. v. 


15 De Heres. c. 26. (t. 8. p. rob.) 
Adventum Spiritus Sancti,a Domino 
promissum, in se potius quam in 
Apostolis ejus fuisse asserunt red- 
ditum. Secundas nuptias pro for- 
nicationibus habent : atque, ideo di- 
eunt eas permisisse Apostolum Pau- 
lum, quia ex parte sciebat et ex parte 
prophetabat: nondum enim venerat, 
quod perfectum est. Hoc autem 
perfectum in Montanum et in ejus 
prophetissas venisse delirant.—C. 
23. (ibid. g d.) Apellitz sunt, quo- 
rum Apelles est princeps.... Hunc 
Apellem dicunt quidam etiam de 
Christo tam falsa sensisse, ut dice- 
ret eum, non quidem carnem de- 
posuisse de ccelo, sed ex elementis 
mundi accepisse, quam mundo red- 
didit, cum sine carne resurgens as- 
cendit in ceelum.—C., 24. (ibid. e.) 
- Severiani a Severo exorti.... [Hic 
preterea Philumenen quandam pu- 
ellam dicebat inspiratam divinitus 
ad prenuntianda futura; ad quam 
somnia atque estus sui anim! re- 
ferens, divinationibus seu presagiis 
ejus sevretim erat solitus preemoneri, 
eodem phantasmate eidem Philu- 
mene pueri habitu se demonstrante, 


qui puer apparens Christum se ali- 
quando, aliquando esse assereret 
Paulum. A quo phantasmate scis- 
citans, ea soleret respondere, que se 
audientibus diceret. Nonnulla quo- 
que illam miracula operari solitam, 
inter que illud precipuum, quod in 
angustissimi orls ampullam vitream 
panem grandem immitteret, eumque 
extremis digitulis levare soleret ille- 
sum, eoque solo quasi divinitus sibi 
cibo dato fuisset contenta *. 

16 Euseb. 1. 5. c. 13. (v. 1. p. 225. 
22.) "Amo τῆς τούτων ἀγέλης ᾿Απελ- 
λῆς μὲν, ὁ τῇ πολιτείᾳ σεμνυνόμενος 
καὶ τῷ ynpa, μίαν ἀρχὴν ὁμολογεῖ" 
τὰς δὲ προφητείας ἐξ ἀντικειμένου 
λέγει πνεύματος" πειθόμενος ἀπο- 
φθέγμασι παρθένου δαιμονώσης ὄνομα 
Φιλουμένης. 

7 Tbid. c. τό. (p. 230. to.) Τῶν 
yap κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν πιστῶν πολλάκις 
καὶ πολλαχῇ τῆς ᾿Ασίας εἰς τοῦτο 
συνελθόντων, καὶ τοὺς προσφάτους 
λόγους ἐξετασάντων καὶ βεβήλους ἀ- 
ποφηνάντων καὶ ἀποδοκιμασάντων τὴν 
αἵρεσιν, οὕτω δὴ τῆς τε ἐκκλησίας 
ἐξεώθησαν, καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας εἵρχθη- 
σαν. 


κ [Abest id totum, say the Benedictine Editors, (ad calc. p. 9.) a MSS., quod 
Sorte cum esset a quopiam in ora libri, non de Severo, sed de Apelle annotatum, 
librarit hallucinantes isthuc transtulerunt. De Apelle et ejusdem Philumene 
Tertullianus, Libr. de Prescript. cc. 6. et 30. 

The Severians, according to Augustine, forbade the use of wine, and rejected 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, as well as the Old Testament. Ep.] 


| 


§ 7, 8. 


divination, &c. 265 


and agitation of Satan. St. Basil 18 appoints the same penance 
for those who profess conjuration, γοητείαν, as for those who 
are guilty of murder, that is, twenty years in several stations 
of repentance. 

8. There was one piece of superstition more, which the 
Ancients frequently censure as a breach of men’s baptismal 
vow, and part of the pomp ὃ and service of Satan, which they ἐς 
professed to renounce in baptism. This was the observation of 
days and accidents, as lucky or unlucky, and making presages 
and omens upon them. St. Chrysostom has a large invective !9 
against this sort of superstition. ‘The pomps of Satan,’ says 
he, ‘are the theatre and the games of the circus, together with 
the observation of days, and presages, and omens. And what 
are omens? Why, suppose when a man goes first out of his 
doors, he meets a man that has but one eye, or is lame, he 
reckons this ominous or foreboding some ill fortune to him. 


18 Ὁ. 65. See before, 5. 5. p. 252. 
latter part of n. 79. 

19 Hom. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. t. 
I. p. 274. [al. Cateches. ad Illu- 
minand. 2.] (t. 2. p. 243 b.) opm 
δὲ Σατανικῇ ἐστι θέατρα, καὶ ἵππο- 
δρομίαι, καὶ πᾶσα ἁμαρτία, καὶ παρα- 
τήρησις ἡμερῶν, καὶ κληδόνες, καὶ 
σύμβολα. Καὶ τί ποτέ ἐστι σύμβο- 
λά φησι: Πολλάκις ἐξελθών τις τὴν 
οἰκίαν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον ἑ ἐτε- 
ρόφθαλμον, ἢ χωλεύοντα.. καὶ οἰωνίσα- 
To" TOUTO πομπὴ Σατανική" οὐ γὰρ ἡ 
ἀπάντησις τοῦ ῦ ἀνθρώπου πονηρὰν ποιεῖ 
τὴν ἡμέραν γενέσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐν ἁ- 
μαρτίαις ὧην. Ὅταν τοίνυν ἐξέλθης, 
ἕν μόνον φύλαξαι, μὴ ἁμαρτία σοι 
ἀπαντήσῃ" αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἡμᾶς 
ὑποσκελίζουσα, χωρὶς δὲ ταύτης οὐδὲ 
ὁ Διάβολος ἡμᾶς βλάψαι δυνήσεται. 
Be “λέγεις: ἄνθρωπον ὁρᾷς, καὶ οἰωνίζῃ, 
καὶ οὐχ ὁρᾷς τὴν πάγην Διαβολικήν ; 
πῶς ἐκπολεμοῖ σε τῷ μηδὲν ἠδικηκότι; 
πῶς ἐχθρόν σε καθίστησι τῷ ἀδελφῷ 
ἐξ οὐδεμιᾶς δικαίας προφάσεως: καὶ 
ὁ μὲν Θεὸς καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς Mei 
ἐκέλευσε, σὺ δὲ καὶ τὸν οὐδὲν ηδικη- 
κότα ἀποστρέφῃ, μηδὲν € ἔχων ἐγκαλεῖν" 
καὶ οὐκ ἐννοεῖς, πόσος ὁ γέλως, πόση 
αἰσχύνη, “μᾶλλον δὲ πόσος ὁ κίνδυνος ; 
Εἴπω καὶ ἕτερον καταγελαστότερον 5 
Αἰσχύνομαι μὲν καὶ ἐρυθριῶ, ᾿ἀναγκά- 
Copa δὲ ὅμως διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν σω- 


τηρίαν εἰπεῖν" ἐὰν ἀπαντήσῃ “παρθένος, 
φησὶν, ἄ ἄπρακτος ἡ ἡμέρα γίνεται" ἐὰν 
δὲ a ἀπαντήσῃ πόρνη. δεξιὰ, καὶ χρηστὴ, 
καὶ πολλῆς ἐμπορίας γέμουσα.. Ὅρα 
γοῦν καὶ ἐνταῦθα, πῶς τὸν δύχόν 
ἔκρυψεν ὁ Διάβολος, ἵνα τὴν μὲν σώ- 
φρονα ἀποστεφώμεθα, τὴν δὲ ἀκό- 
λαστον ἀσπαζώμεθα καὶ φιλῶμεν.. 
Τί ἄν τις εἴποι περὶ τῶν ἐπῳδαῖς καὶ 
περιάπτοις κεχρημένων, καὶ νομίσματα 
χαλκᾶ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος 
ταῖς κεφαλαῖς καὶ τοῖς ποσὶ περιδεσ- 
μούντων : αὗται αἱ ἐλπίδες ἡ ἡμῶν: εἰπέ 
μοι, ἵνα μετὰ σταυρὸν καὶ θάνατον 
Δεσποτικὸν, x. τ. A-—See before, b. 
11. ch. 7. 8. 13. V. 4. Ρ. 139. Π. 9. 
—Conf. Hom. 23. τ eos, qui No- 
vilunia observant. See before, ch. 
ch. 4. s. 17, of this book, p. 226. n. 
ae —Vid. etiam Comment. in Gal. 
P- 973: (t. το. p. 669 c.) Καὶ yap 
Ἑλλήναν ἤθη πολλὰ παρά τισι τῶν 
ἡμετέρων φυλάττεται, κληδονισμοὶ, 
καὶ οἰωνισμοὶ, καὶ σύμβολα, καὶ ἣμε- 
ρῶν παρατηρήσεις, καὶ 7 περὶ τὴν 
γένεσιν σπουδὴ, καὶ τὰ πάσης ἀσεβείας 
γέμοντα γραμματεῖα, ἃ τικτομένων τῶν 
παιδίων εὐθέως ἐπὶ κακῷ τῆς ἑαυτῶν 
συντιθέασι κεφαλῆς, ἐκ προοιμίων 
παιδεύοντες καταλύειν τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἀρε- 
τῆς πόνους, καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν πεπλανημένην 
τυραννίδα τῆς εἱμαρμένης τόγε αὐτῶν 
ἄγοντες μέρος. 


Of observa- 
tion of days 
and acci- 
dents, and 
making 

presages 
and omens 
upon them, 


266 The great crimes, XVL τς 


This is part of the pomps of Satan. For the meeting of a man 
does not make the day evil, but the spending of it in sin. 
Keep from sin, and the Devil himself cannot hurt you: but if 
you make presages upon meeting of a man, you discern not 
the Deyil’s snare, who makes you without reason an enemy to 
one who has done you no harm. But there is one thing more 


ridiculous than this, which I am ashamed to speak, and yet I © 


must mention for your salvation. Ifa man meets a virgin, he 
cries out presently, This will be a fruitless day with me! but 
if he meets an harlot, it will be a good and lucky day, and bring 
him in great gain and advantage. See how the Devil here 
hides his craft, to make us abhor a chaste and modest woman, 
and love an impudent harlot. But what shall a man say of those 
who use enchantments and ligatures, binding the brazen medals 
of Alexander the Great about their heads or feet? Are these, 
I pray, the hopes of a Christian, that after the cross and death 
of our Lord, we should place our hopes of salvation or health 
in the image of an Heathen king? Know you not what great 
things the cross has done? how it has destroyed death, 
abolished sin, taken away the force of hell and the grave, and 
dissolved the power of death? and canst thou not trust it for 
curing thy bodily distempers? It has raised the whole world 
from the dead, and canst thou not confide in it? But thou dost 
not only seek after such ligatures, but enchantments, enter- 
taining old drunken and staggering women in thy house for 
this purpose. And the apology you make for so doing is 
worse than the error itself. The woman, say you, who makes 
the charm, is a Christian, and she does nothing but make use 
of the name of God. For that very reason I the more detest 
and abhor her, because she uses the name of God to dishonour 
and reproach it; because she is called a Christian, and does 
the works of an Heathen. The devils confessed the name of 
God, yet they were devils for all that: they said to Christ, 
We know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God, yet not- 
withstanding he rebuked them and cast them out. Wherefore 
I beseech you, keep yourselves pure from this deceit, and let 
this word, I renounce thee, Satan! be your staff. As you 
would not go into the market without your shoes and clothes, 
so never go forth of your doors without first using this word, 


“ων. “πα rr ἃ. « 


88. 


divination, δ᾽ 6. 267 


I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp and service, and I make 
a covenant with thee, O Christ! Go no where without this 
word, and it will be your staff, your armour, your impregnable 
tower. Join with this word the sign of the cross in your fore- 
head, and so not only the meeting of any man, but the Devil 
himself cannot hurt you.’ 

St. Austin 2° gives a like caution against this sort of super- 
stitious observations. ‘ To this kind,’ says he, ‘ belong all liga- 
tures and remedies, which the school of physicians reject and 
condemn, whether in enchantments, or in certain marks which 
they call characters, or in other things that are to be hanged 
and bound about the body, and kept in a dancing posture, not 
for any temperament of the body, but for certain significations 
either occult or manifest: which by a gentler name they call 
physical, that they may not seem to afiright men with the 
appearance of superstition, but do good in a natural way: 
such are ear-rings hanged upon the tip of each ear, and rings 
made of an ostrich’s bones for the fingers; or when you are 
told, in a fit of the convulsions or shortness of breath, to hold 
your left thumb with your right hand. To which may be 


20 De Doctrin. Christian. 1. 2. c. 
20. (t. 3. part 1. p. 31 6.) Ad hoc 
genus pertinent omnes etiam liga- 
ture, atque remedia, que medico- 
rum quoque disciplina condemnat, 
sive in precantationibus, sive in 
quibusdam notis, quas characteres 
vocant; sive in quibusque rebus 
suspendendis atque illigandis, vel 
etiam aptandis quodammodo, non 
ad temperationem corporum, sed ad 
quasdam significationes aut occultas 
aut etiam manifestas: que mitiore 
nomine physica vocant, ut non quasi 
superstitione implicare, sed natura 
prodesse videantur: sicut sunt in- 
aures in summo aurium singularum, 
aut de struthionum ossibus ansulze 
in digitis, aut cum tibi dicitur sin- 
gultienti, ut dextera manu sinistrum 
pollicem teneas. His adjunguntur 
millia inanissimarum observatio- 
num, si membrum aliquod salierit, 
si junctim ambulantibus amicis, 
lapis aut canis, aut puer medius 
intervenerit: atque illud quod lapi- 
dem calcant, tanquam diremptorem 
amicitiz, minus molestum est, quam 


quod innocentem puerum colapho 
percutiunt, si pariter ambulantibus 
intercurrit. Sed bellum est, quod 
aliquando pueri vindicantur a cani- 
bus: nam plerumque tam supersti- 
tiosi sunt quidam, ut etiam canem, 
ui medius intervenerit, ferire au- 

eant; non impune, namque ἃ vano 
remedio cito ille interdum percus- 
sorem suum ad verum medicum 
mittit. Hine sunt etiam illa: limen 
caleare, cum ante domum suam 
transit: redire ad lectum, si quis, 
dum se calciat, sternutaverit : redire 
domum, si procedens offenderit : 
cum vestis a soricibus roditur, plus 
tremere suspicione futuri mali, quam 
presens damnum dolere. Unde illud 
eleganter dictum est Catonis, qui, 
cum esset consultus a quodam, qui 
sibi a soricibus errosas (al. corrosas | 
caligas diceret, respondit non esse 
illud monstrum, sed vere monstrum 
habendum fuisse, si sorices a caligis 
roderentur.—Conf. Enchirid. c. 79. 
(t. 6. p. 227 Ὁ.) .... Magnum pec- 
catum dies observare et menses et 
annos et tempora, &c. 


268 The great crimes, XVI. vi 


added a thousand vain observations, as if any of our members 
beat; if, when two friends are walking together, a stone, or a 
dog, or a child happens to come between them: they tread 
the stone to pieces as the divider of their friendship; and this 
is tolerable in comparison of beating an innocent child that 
comes between them. But it is more pleasant, that sometimes 
the children’s quarrel is revenged by the dogs; for many 


times they are so superstitious as to dare to beat the dog 


that comes between them, who, turning again upon him that 
smites him, sends him, from seeking a vain remedy, to seek 
a real physician indeed. Hence proceed likewise those other 
superstitions, for a man to tread upon his threshold when he 
passes by his own house: to return back to bed again if he 
chance to sneeze whilst he is putting on his shoes: to re- 
turn into his house if he stumble at his going out: if the rats 
gnaw his clothes, to be more terrified with the suspicion of 
some future evil, than concerned for his present loss. He 
says, Cato gave a wise and smart answer to such an one who 
came in some consternation to consult him about the rats 
having gnawed his stockings: That, said he, is no great won- 
der, but it would have been a wonder indeed if the stockings 
had gnawed the rats.’ St. Austin mentions the witty answer 
of a wise Heathen, to convince Christians the better of the 
unreasonableness and vanity of all such superstitious observa- 
tions. And he concludes?2!, ‘ that all such arts, whether of 


21 Thid. c. 23. (p. 33 f, g.) Omnes 
igitur artes hujusmodi vel nuga- 
torize vel noxiz superstitionis, ex 
quadam pestifera societate hominum 
et demonum, quasi pacta quedam 
infidelis et dolosz amicitiz consti- 
tuta, penitus sunt repudianda et 
fugienda Christiano: Non quod ido- 
lum sit aliquid, [ut] ait Apostolus, 
sed quia que immolant, demoniis 
immolant, et non Deo: nolo autem 
vos socios demoniorum fieri. Quod 
autem de idolis, et de immolationi- 
bus, que honori eorum exhibentur, 
dixit Apostolus, hoc de omnibus 
imaginarlis signis sentiendum est, 
qu vel ad cultum idolorum, vel 
ad creaturam ejusque partes tan- 
quam Deum colendas trahunt, vel 
ad remediorum aliarumque obser- 


vationem curam pertinent: quz non 
sunt divinitus ad dilectionem Dei et 
proximi tanquam publice consti- 
tuta, sed per privatas appetitiones 
rerum temporalium corda dissipant 
miserorum. In omnibus ergo istis 
doctrinis societas demonum formi- 
danda atque vitanda est, qui nihil 
cum principe suo Diabolo nisi redi- 
tum nostrum claudere atque obse- 
rare conantur. Sicut autem de stel- 
lis, quas condidit et ordinavit Deus, 
humane et deceptoriz conjecture 
ab hominibus institute sunt; sic 
etiam de quibusque nascentibus, vel 
quoquomodo divine  providentiz 
administratione exsistentibus rebus, 
multi multa humanis suspicionibus, 
quasi regulariter conjectata, literis 
mandaverunt, si forte insolite ac- 


divination, &c. 269 


trifling or more noxious superstition, are to be rejected and 
avoided by Christians, as proceeding originally from some per- 
nicious society between men and devils, and being the compacts 
and agreement of such a treacherous and deceitful friendship. 
The Apostle forbids us to have fellowship with devils: and 
that, he says, respects not only idols and things offered to 
idols, but all imaginary signs pertaining to the worship of 
idols, and also all remedies and other observations which are 
not appointed publicly by God to promote the love of God and 
our neighbour, but proceed from the private fancies of men, 
and tend to corrupt the hearts of poor deluded mortals. For 
these things have no natural virtue in them, but owe all their 
efficacy to a presumptuous confederacy with devils: and they 
are full of pestiferous curiosity, tormenting anxiety, and deadly 
slavery. They were first taken up, not for any real power to 
be discerned in them, but gained their power by men’s ob- 
serving them. And therefore, by the Devil’s art, they happen 
differently to different men, according to their own appre- 
hensions and presumptions. For the great deceiver knows 
how to procure things agreeable to every man’s temper, and 
ensnare him by his own suspicions and consent.’ 

As this is an excellent account of these superstitious obser- 
vations, so it seems to intimate that some difference was made 
between the professors of these arts, and those who through 
ignorance were deluded by them: and therefore, though the 
former might fall under the severest discipline of the Church, 
yet the latter seemed rather to have been chastised by ad- 
monitions and rebukes, as here by St. Austin and St. Chry- 
sostom, and not to have incurred the highest censure of 


ciderint, tanquam si mula pariat, 
aut fulmine aliquid _percutiatur. 
Que omnia tantum valent, quan- 
tum presumptione animorum quasi 
communi quadam lingua cum de- 
monibus foederata sunt. Que tamen 
plena sunt omnia pestifere curiosi- 
tatis, cruciantis solicitudinis, mor- 
tiferee servitutis. Non enim quia 
valebant, animadversa sunt: sed 
animadvertendo atque signando fac- 
tum est ut valerent. Et ideo diver- 
sio diverse proveniunt secundum 
cogitationes et prasumptiones suas. 


Illi enim spiritus, qui decipere vo- 
lunt, talia procurant cuique, quali- 
bus eum irretitum per suspiciones 
et consensiones ejus vident.—Vid. 
plura ap. Gratian. caus. 26. quest. 
7. 6.15. (t.1. p.1481. 74.) Admo- 
neant sacerdotes fideles populos, ut 
noverint magicas artes, incantatio- 
nesque, quibuslibet infirmitatibus 
hominum nihil remedii conferre, &c. 
—Conf. c. 16. (pp. 1482. 20.) Non 
observetis dies, qui dicuntur gyp- 
tiaci, aut Calendas Januarii, &c. 


270 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


excommunication, because of their simplicity, and perhaps 
because of the numbers of those who were daily inclined to 
mind such observations of days and accidents, without con- 
sidering either the original of the superstition, or the mischief 
thereby done 22 to piety and religion. 

I have insisted a little longer upon these things, because it 
is to be feared there is always reason for a serious caution 
against such superstitions, which are apt to creep upon unwary 
men in all ages of the Church. 


CHAP. VI. 


Of apostasy into Judaism and Paganism, of heresy and 
schism, sacrilege and simony. 


Of such as 
apostatized 


1. Besmes the forementioned crimes against the first and 
second commandments, there were a great many others worth 


totally from hae 
Christian- our observance, as bringing men under the severest censures 
oe Ju- of the Church. Among these the disposition, which many 


eee 


showed toward the antiquated religion and ceremonies of the 
Jews, is often taken notice of by the Ancients in their accounts 
of Church discipline. And of these we may observe three sorts 
or degrees. Some entirely abandoned the Christian religion, 
and went totally over to the Jews; others mingled the Jewish 
ceremonies and some of their doctrines with the Christian reli- 
gion; and others complied so far with them as to communicate 
with them in many of their unlawful practices, though they 
made no formal profession of their religion. Of the first sort 
was Aquila, the translator of the Bible, who at first was a 
Christian, as Epiphanius 35 informs us, till bemg expelled from 
the Church for adhering to astrology, he fled over to the Jews 
and took sanctuary among them, setting about a new trans- 
lation of the Bible in spite to the Christians. And such were 
many in the days of Barchochab the great impostor, who com- 


mois, des temps, et des années, &c.) 
—See also Mr. Bayle’s Reflexions 
occasioned by a Comet, s. 89. (In 
French, Rotterdam, 1705. t. 2. p. 


22 (Consult Mr. Thier’s Traité 
des Superstitions, ch. 23. Paris, 
1679. (Ὁ. 4. ch. 3. pp. 248, &c. of 
the first volume of an edition of the 


ee 


—— 


Superstitions des Sacramens, Avig- 
non, 1777, in four tomes, 12mo. 
viz. De l’observance des jours, des 


444.) Ep.) 
23 De Mensur. et Ponder. ἢ. 15. 
See before, ch. 5. 5.1. p. 242. ἢ. 41. 


ae 


apostasy, Sc. 271 


pelled many Christians to deny and curse Christ, as Justin 
Martyr 2+ acquaints us. Now, though the imperial laws al- 
lowed those that were originally Jews the freedom of their 
religion, and many privileges for a long time under the reigns 
of Christian Emperors, yet they severely prohibited any Chris- 
tian going over to them, and laid very great penalties upon all 
such apostates. Constantine 35 left it to the discretion of the 
judges to punish such apostates with death, or any other con- 
dign punishment. His son Constantius 26 subjected them to 
confiscation of goods. And Valentinian Junior?’ laid upon 
them the penalty of being intestate, denying them and all 
other apostates the privilege of disposing of their estates by 
will. And, in compliance with these laws of the State, the 
Church, after she had anathematized such apostates, showed 
her detestation of them further in denying them the privilege 
of being accepted as credible witnesses in any of her courts of 
judicature. For he cannot be faithful to man, says the fourth 
Council of Toledo 2%, who has been unfaithful to God. There- 
fore those Jews who were heretofore Christians, and now pre- 
varicate from the faith of Christ, ought not to be admitted to 
give testimony, although they call themselves Christians, be- 
cause, as they are suspected in the faith of Christ, so their 
credit ought to be questioned in human testimony. Therefore 
their evidence is of no force, seeing they have falsified in the 
faith ; neither is any credit to be given to them, who have cast 
off the word.of truth. 


24 Apol. 2. (p. 72 8.) Καὶ yap ἐν leg. 3. (p. 205.) Christianorum ad 


τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ᾽ Ιουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ, 
Βαρχωχέβας, ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀπο- 
στάσεως ἀρχηγέτης. Χριστιανοὺς μό- 
vous εἰς τιμωρίας δεινὰς, εἰ μὴ ἀρ- 
νοῖντο ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ βλασ- 
φημοῖεν, ἐκέλευεν ἀπάγεσθαι. 

25 Cod. Theod. 1. 26. tit. 8. de 
Judeis, leg. 1. (t. 6. p. 214.). 
Si quis vero ex popalo ad eorum 
nefariam sectam accesserit, et con- 
ciliabulis eorum se applicaverit, cum 
ipsis peenas meritas sustinebit. 

26 Ibid. leg. 7. (p. 223.) Si quis 

. ex Christiano Judzus effectus, 

HWAtsle facultates ejus dominio fisci 
jussimus vindicari. 

27 hid. 1. 16. tit. 7. de Apostatis, 


aras et templa migrantium, negata 
testandi licentia, vindicamus admis- 
sum. .Eorum quoque flagitia puni- 
antur, qui Christiane religionis et 
nominis dignitate neglecta, Judaicis 
semet polluere a 

28 C. 63. [al. 64.] (t.5. p.1720€.) 
Non potest erga homines esse fide- 
lis, qui Deo exstiterit infidelis. Ju- 
dei ergo, qui dudum Christiani 
effecti sunt, et nunc in Christi 
fidem preevaricati sunt, δα testi- 
monium dicendum admitti non de- 
bent, quamvis esse se Christianos 
annuntient: quia sicut in fide Christi 
suspecti sunt, ita in testimonio hu- 
mano dubii habentur, &c. 


272 XVI. vi. 


The great crimes, 


Ofsuchas 2, Another sort there were who did not wholly cast off the 
mingled the 


Jewish Christian religion, but made up a new religion for themselves 
rin τς τς by a mixture of both together. Such a miscellany was the 
tian toge- heresy of the Nazarenes, and those of the Ebionites, and Ce- 
ther. rinthians, and Elcesaites, and Sampseans, who observed cir- 
cumcision and other rituals of the Jewish law, together with so 
much as they retained of the Christian; as may be seen in the 
accounts which St. Austin?9 and other ancient writers give of 
them. And Gothofred thinks the Celicole, who are specified 
and condemned in two or three laws of Honorius in the Theo- 
dosian Code, were a mongrel sect of the same nature. They 
joined circumcision and baptism together; agreeing both with 
Jews and Christians in rejecting idols and worshipping only 
heaven, that is, the God of heaven, whence they had the title 
of Celicole ; but in this they agreed with the Jews only, that 
they rejected the doctrine of a Trinity in the Godhead, and 
only worshipped God in one person. In which respect the 
Sabellians also, and Paulianists, and Praxeans, and Theodo- 
tians, and Arians, and Photinians, who either denied the 
divinity of Christ, or confounded the three divine Persons into 
one, are commonly charged by the Ancients as flying back to 
Judaism in this point, whilst they subverted the true doctrine 
of the Christian Trinity by their heterodox innovations. [Ὁ is 
particularly remarked by learned men®° concerning Paulus 


29 De Heres. c. 8. (t.8. p.7 d.) quam unasit heresis, ponat.—C, 22. 


Cerinthiani a Cerintho, iidemque 
Merinthiani a Merintho, mundum 
ab angelis factum esse dicentes, et 
carne circumcidi oportere, atque alia 
hujusmodi Legis preecepta servari.— 
C. 9. (ibid. 6.) Nazarei, cum Dei 
Filium confiteantur esse Christum, 
omnia tamen Veteris Legis observant, 
que Christiani per apostolicam tra- 
ditionem non observare carnaliter, 
sed spiritaliter intelligere, didicerunt 
—C. το. (ibid. e, f.) Ebionzi Chris- 
tum etiam ipsi tantummodo homi- 
nem dicunt. Mandata carnalia Le- 
gis observant, circumcisionem scili- 
cet carnis, et ceetera, a quorum one- 
ribus per Novum ‘Testamentum 
liberati sumus. Huic heeresi Epi- 
phanius Sampszos et Elceszos ita 
copulat, ut sub eodem numero, tan- 


(ibid. τὰ b.) Elceszeos et Sampszeos 
hic tanquam ordine suo commemo- 
rat Epiphanius, quos dicit . . . cetera 
Ebionzis tenere similia. 

30 Maurice’s Vindication, &c., or 
Answer to Baxter’s Church Hist. 
(p. 287.) It was in short by way of 
comprehension, &c.—Baron.an. 265. 
n. 2. (t.2. p. 607.) Erat Odenato 
conjux, insignis pudicitize atque 
prudentiz in rebus agendis foemina. 
Hance fuisse Judzeam sanctus Atha- 
nasius testari videtur, cum ait in 
Arianos: Zenobia Judea erat, et 
protectrix Pauli Samosateni ; et ta- 
men Judeis in synagogas ecclesias 
non tradidit. Hzec quippe scientiis 
erudita, usa est in Grecis literis 
Longino preceptore; quod tradit 
Vopiscus :; quem et Porphyrius lau- 


ΒΚ Ὁ ΦΡ 


os ii; in o 


iin ΓῚ 


apostasy, Se. 273 


Samosatensis, that the true reason why he denied the divinity 
of Christ was to compliment Queen Zenobia, who was a 
Jewish proselyte: for he thought, that by reducing Christ 
to be a mere man, he might reconcile both religions, and 
take away the partition-wall that divided the Jews and 
Christians; nothing being so great an offence to the Jews 
as that Christ was owned by his disciples to be God. There 
was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians, that 
is, Worshippers of the Most High God, whom they worshipped, 
as the Jews, only in one Person: and they observed their sab- 
baths, and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean; though 
they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen3!, whose 
father was once one of this sect, gives the account of them. 
Now it is certain the Church never allowed any of these 
miscellaneous doctrines, or mongrel sects, but condemned them 
all as heretics, and excluded them from her communion. And 
the laws of the State were particularly severe against the Ce- 
licole, those who joined circumcision and baptism together, 
there being three laws of Honorius in the Theodosian Code 
directly formed against them. In the first of which®? he 
ranks them with the Donatists, and Manichees, and Priscillian- 
ists, and Heathens; ordering all general penal laws against 
heretics to be put in execution against them; and particularly 
appointing ‘ that the houses of the Celicole, where that new 
sect held their conventicles, should with the rest be forfeited to 
the Church.’ In the second, he calls them the new audacious 


dibus celebrat. Sed et cupida Chris- 
tianarum literarum, male consulta 
adscivit sibi magistrum Paulum Sa- 
mosatenum, episcopum Antioche- 
num, hereticum, de Christo abjecte 
nimis et humiliter sentientem, ac 
penitus Judaizantem, de quo Phi- 
lastrius: Hic verbum Dei, id est, 
Christum Deum, Dei Filium substan- 
tivum ad personalem et sempiternum 
esse cum Patre denegabat: prola- 
tivum autem, id est, quasi aérem 
quendam dicebat, non tamen perso- 
nam vivam ΕἸ sempiternam cum 
sempiterno Patre credendam esse do- 
cebat. Hic Christum hominem jus- 
tum, non Deum verum predicabat ; 
Judaizans potius, qui et circumcisio- 
nem docebat: unde et Zenobiam 
quandam reginam in Oriente tune 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


temporis ipse docuit Judaizare. 

31 Orat. 19. In Funere Patris. (t. 
I. p. 289 b.) Τῆς μὲν yap εἴδωλα 
καὶ τὰς θυσίας ἀποπεμπόμενοι τιμῶσι 
τὸ πῦρ καὶ τὰ λύχνα᾽ τῆς δὲ τὸ Σάβ- 
βατον αἰδούμενοι, καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ 
πρόβατα ἔς τινα μικρολογίαν, [8]. καὶ 
τὴν περὶ τὰ βρώματά ἐστιν ἃ μικρο- 
Aoyiav,] τὴν περιτομὴν ἀτιμάζουσιν. 
Ὑψιστάριοι τοῖς ταπεινοῖς ὄνομα, καὶ 
ὁ Παντοκράτωρ δὴ μόνος αὐτοῖς σε- 
βάσμιος. 

82 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 5. de 
Hereticis, leg. 43. (t. 6. p.164.)... 
Ita ut edificia vel horum, vel cceli- 
colarum etiam (quz nescio cujus 
dogmatis novi conventus habent) 
ecclesiis vindicentur. 

33 [bid. leg.44. (p.165.) Donatist- 
arum hereticorum, Judzorum nova 


T 


974 The great crimes, XVL. vi. 


sect of the Jews, which presumed to disturb the sacraments of 
the Church, because they rebaptized the Catholics, as the 
Donatists did. In the third, he styles them again, ‘the new 
sect of the Oclicole, who brought in an unheard of supersti- 
tion.’ And he threatens them, ‘ that unless within a year they 
returned to the service of God and the Christian worship, all 
the laws made against heretics should lay hold of them.’ St. 
Austin also in one of his Epistles®> mentions this sect of the 
Ceelicole, and intimates, that they joined with the Donatists in 
rebaptizing the Catholics. And that he means a sect which 
apostatized from the Christian to the Jewish religion, is evident 
from the title majores, given by him to their ministers: for by 
this title the Jewish ministers are frequently distinguished in 
the Theodosian Code2°. So that it is plain, that this sect of 
the Celicole was a mixture of the Christian and Jewish re- 
ligion together, and, as such, was both punished by the laws of 
the State, and rejected from communion by the laws of the 
Church. 

3. Besides these, there were some Christians who neither 
went over wholly to the Jews’ religion, nor in any main point 
complied with them, who yet in some more remote rites and 
practices refused not to communicate with them, as in obsery- 
ing their festivals and feasting, and marrying with them, and 
receiving their eulogiw, and having recourse to them for 
phylacteries and charms to cure diseases: all which therefore 
are condemned under the penalty of ecclesiastical censure. 
The Council of Laodicea#? forbids Christians to Judaize by 


Of such as 
communi- 
cated with 
the Jews in 
their un- 
lawful rites 
and prac- 
tices. 


atque inusitata detexit audacia, quod 
Catholice fidei velint sacramenta 
turbare, &c. 

84 Το 16. tit. 8. de Judeis, Celi- 
colis, et Samaritanis, leg. 19. (p.234.) 
Ceelicolarum nomen inauditum quo- 
dammodo novum crimen supersti- 
tionis vindicavit. Hi nisi infra anni 
terminos ad Dei cultum veneratio- 
nemque Christianam conversi fu- 
erint, his, legibus quibus preecepimus 
hereticos adstringi, se quoque no- 
verint attinendos. 

35 Ep. 163. p. 284. [al. 44. c. 6.] 
ad Eleusium. (t.2. p. 106 f.) Jam 
miseramus ad majorem Ceelicolarum, 
quem audieramus novi apud eos 


baptismi institutorem instituisse, et 
multos illo sacrilegio seduxisse, &c. 

86 L. 16. tit.8. de Judzis, Ceeli- 
colis, &c., leg.1. (t. 6. p.214.) Judzis, 
et majoribus eorum et patriarchis 
volumus intimari, &e.—Leg. 23. (p. 
240.) Annati didascalo et majoribus 
Judzorum.—Ibid. tit. 9. leg. 3. (p. 
248.) Eadem inscriptio. 

87 C, 29. (t. 1. p. 1501 δὴ “Ore ob 
δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ 
Σαββάτῳ σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἐργάζεσθαι 
αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ" τήν δὲ Κυ- 
ριακὴν προτιμῶντες, εἴγε δύναιντο, 
σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί. Ei δὲ εὑ- 
ρεθεῖεν ᾿Ιουδαϊσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα 
παρὰ Χριστῷ. 


apostasy, Se. 275 


resting on the Sabbath under pain of anathema: likewise it 
prohibits 38. keeping Jewish feasts and accepting festival-pre- 
sents sent from them: as also receiving unleavened bread from 
them, which is accounted a partaking with them in their im- 
piety. To the same purpose, among the Apostolical Canons 
we find one®9 forbidding to fast or feast with the Jews, or to 
receive any of their festival-presents, or unleavened bread, 
under the penalty of deposition to a clergyman, and excom- 
munication toa layman. And by another of the same canons’, 
to carry oil to a Jewish synagogue, or set up lights on their 
festivals, is paralleled with the crime of doing the like for an 
Heathen temple or festival, and both of them equally punished 
with excommunication. So a bishop, priest, or deacon, who 
celebrates the Easter-festival before the vernal equinox with 
the Jews+!, is to be-deposed. Though this is a little more 
severe than the constitution that was made about it in the time 
of Irenzus, and afterwards was confirmed by Constantine 15 
and the Council of Nice4?: for they forbid the celebration of 
Easter with the Jews, but lay not the penalty of deposition, or 


38 (Ὁ, . 87: (ibid. p. 1504 b.)” Ore οὐ 
δεῖ παρὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἢ ἢ αἱρετικῶν τὰ 
πεμπόμενα ἑορταστικὰ λαμβάνειν, μη- 
δὲ συνεορτάζειν αὐτοῖς. —C. 38. (ibid. 
c.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ παρὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
ἄζυμα λαμβάνειν, ἢ κοινωνεῖν τοῖς 
ἀσεβείαις αὐτῶν. 

39 C. 70. [4]. 69.] (Cotel. [e. 62.] 
v. I. p.446.) Et tis ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ 
ἄλλος κληρικὸς, νηστεύοι μετὰ τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων, ἢ ἑορτάζοι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἢ 
δέχεται [8]. δέχοιτο) παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰ 
τῆς ἑορτῆς ξένια, οἷον ἄζυμα, ἤ ἤ τι τοι- 
ovrov, καθαιρείσθω: εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, 
ἀφοριζέσθω. [The first part is dif- 
ferently worded in Labbe. Ep. | 

40 C. 71. fal. 70.| (Cotel. [c. 63.] 
ibid. 6.) Εἴ τις Χριστιανὸς ἔλαιον 
ἀπενέγκοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἐθνῶν, ἢ ἢ εἰς συνα- 
γωγὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς 
αὐτῶν, ἢ λύχνους ἅψῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω. 
[Somewhat differently worded in 
Labbe. Ep.] 

41 Ibid. c. 8. [al. 7.] (Cotel. [c. 5+] 
Vv. 1. p. 437.) Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ 
πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, τὴν ἁγίαν 
τοῦ Πάσχα ἡμέραν πρὸ τῆς ἐαρινῆς 
ἰσημερίας μετὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐπιτελέσῃ, 
kaapeicOw.— Conf. Cod. Theod. 


1,16. tit. 5. leg.g. et tit. 6. leg. 6. 
de Protopaschitis. (t.6. p. 124. sect. 
ult.) Quicunque in unum Pasche 
diem non obsequenti religione con- 
venerint, tales indubitanter, quales 
hac lege damnavimus, habeantur.— 
Conf. ibid. tit. 6. leg. 6. de Proto- 
paschitis. (ibid. p. 200.).... Sed si 
alio die, &c 

42 Ep. ap. Euseb. de Vit. Con- 
stant, “1. '3.'"ce: Τῶν τὸ (vex. pp. 
587-588.) De consensu in celebra- 
tione Festi Paschalis, &c 

48 [Vid. Ep. ad Ecclesias Agypti, 
Libyz, et Pentapolis. (ap. Ed. Crabb. 
t. 1. p.262. col. sinistr.) Evangeli- 
zavimus autem vobis et de conso- 
nantia sanctissimi Pasche, quia ves- 
tris orationibus est correctum etiam 
hoe opus, ita ut omnes Orientales 
fratres, qui cum Judeis primitus 
celebrabunt, consonent cum Ro- 
manis; ut vobiscum, et cum omni- 
bus ab initio Pascha custodientibus, 
ex hoc tempore debeant custodire. 
—Conf. Gelas. Hist. C. Nicen. 1. 2. 
c. 33. (ap. Labb. t. 2. p. 251 b, c.) 
Lztum enim nuntium vobis afferi- 
mus de consensu, &c. Ep.] 


T2 


276 


excommunication upon those that followed that custom, because 
they had some pretence of apostolical tradition for their practice. 
The Council of Eliberis*+ forbids Christians to have recourse to 
the Jews for blessing the fruits of the earth, and that under the 
penalty of excommunication, because it was a reproach to the 
manner of blessing them in the Church, as if that was weak 
and ineffectual. The same Council? forbids both clergy and 
laity to eat with the Jews, upon pain of being cast out of the 
Church. And the reason of this is assigned by the Council of 
Agde+®; ‘because they use not the meats that are commonly 
used among Christians, therefore it is an unworthy and sacri- 
legious thing to eat with them: forasmuch as they reputed 
those things unclean which the Apostle allows us to receive ; 
and so Christians are rendered inferior to the Jews, if we eat 
of such things as they set before us, and they contemn what 
we offer them.’ Which canon is repeated in the same 
words in the Council of Vannes‘7, and there is a rule 
in the Council of Epone+® to the same purpose. It appears 
also from the fourth Council of Toledo that the Spanish 
Churches were much infested with this sort of complying and 
Judaizing Christians; some patronising the Jews in their per- 
fidiousness ; others turning downright apostates, and submit- 


The great crimes, 


XVL vi. 


44 C. 49. (t. 1. p.g76 a.) Admo- 
neri placuit possessores, ut non pa- 
tiantur fructus suos, quos a Deo 
percipiunt [cum gratiarum actione], 
a Judeis benedici, ne nostram irri- 
tam et infirmam faciant benedictio- 
nem. Si quis post interdictum fa- 
cere usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia 
abjiciatur. 

49 C.1. (ibid. b.) Si vero [ali]quis 
clericus vel fidelis [fuerit, qui cum] 
Judeis cibum sumpserit, placuit 
eum a communione abstinere, ut 
debeat emendari. 

46 Ὁ. 40. (t. 4. p. 1390 a.) Omnes 
deinceps clerici sive laici Judeeorum 
conviyla evitent; nec eos ad con- 
vivium quisquam excipiat: quia cum 
apud Christianos cibis communibus 
non utantur, indignum est atque 
sacrilegum eorum cibos a Christianis 
sumi; cum ea, que Apostolo per- 
mittente nos sumimus, ab illis ju- 
dicentur immunda; ac sic inferiores 
incipiant esse Christiani quam Ju- 


dei, si nos, que ab illis apponuntur, 
utamur, illi vero a nobis oblata con- 
temnant. 

47 C. 12. (ibid. p. 1056 c.) Om- 
nes, &c. 

48 C.15. (ibid. p.1578 a.) A Ju- 
deorum conviviis etiam laicos con- 
stitutio nostra prohibuit; nec cum 
ullo clerico nostro panem comedat, 
quisquis Judzorum fuerit convivio 
inquinatus.—Conf. C. Matiscon. 1. 
c. 15. (t. 5. p. 969 6.) Ut nullus 
Christianus Judzorum  conviviis 
participare presumat. Quod si fa- 
cere quicunque, quod nefas est dici, 
clericus aut seecularis prassumpserit, 
ab omnium Christianorum consortio 
se noverit compescendum, quisquis 
eorum impietatibus fuerit inquinatus. 
—C. Aurelian. 3. c. 13. (ibid. p. 
299 d.) Item Christianis convivia 
interdicimus Judeorum; in quibus 
si forte fuisse probantur, annuali 
excommunicationi pro hujusmodi 
contumacia subjacebunt. 


§ 3. 


apostasy, Sc. 277 


ting to circumcision; and others indifferently conversing with 
them to the manifest danger of their own subversion. Against 
which last sort of compliers the sixty-first canon of that Coun- 
cil49 is particularly directed; and there are six or seven canons 
more in the same place one after another relating to cases of 
the like nature, which need not here be related. The Council - 
of Clermont*® makes it excommunication for a Christian to 
marry a Jew. And the third Council of Orleans*! prohibits it 
under the same penalty, together with sequestration of the 
persons from each other. 

St. Chrysostom 53. inveighs against those who went out of 
curiosity to the Jewish synagogues, saying, it was the same 
thing as going to an idol-temple: ‘If any one sees thee, who 
hast knowledge, go to a synagogue to see the trumpets, shall 
not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to ad- 
mire the Jewish ceremonies? Although there be no idol there, 
yet the devils inhabit the place. Which I say not only of the 
synagogue which is here, but that of Daphne, that more im- 


49 [C. Tolet. 4. c. 61. juxt. Ed. 
Crabb. (t. 2. p. 204.) juxt. Labb. 
c. 62. (t. 5. p. 1720 c.) Sepe malo- 
rum consortia etiam bonos corrum- 
punt, quanto magis eos, qui ad vitia 
proni sunt. Nulla igitur ultra com- 
munio sit Hebrais ad fidem Christi- 
anam translatis cum his, qui adhuc 
in vetere ritu consistunt, ne forte 
eorum participatione [al. participio] 
subvertantur. Ep. | 

50 C.6. (t. 4. p. 1804 6.) Si quis 
Judaice pravitati jugali societate 
conjungitur, et seu Christiana Ju- 
deo, seu Judzus Christiane mulieri 
carnali consortio misceatur, quicun- 

ue horum tantum nefas admisisse 

ignoscitur, a Christianorum ccetu 
atque convivio et communione ec- 
clesiz, cujus sociatur hostibus, se- 
gregetur. 

51 C. 13. (t.5. p. 299 c.) Christi- 
anis quoque omnibus interdicimus, 
ne Judzorum conjugiis misceantur : 

uod si fecerint, usque ad sequestra- 
tionem, quisquis ille est, communi- 
one pellatur.—Conf. Augustin. Ep. 
234. aC 255-] ad Rustic. (t. 2. p. 
882 b.).... Cum certissime noveris, 
etiam si nostre absolute sit potes- 
tatis, quamlibet puellam in conju- 


gium tradere, tradi a nobis Christia- 
nam nisi Christiano non posse. 
52 Hom. 1. cont. Judzos. t. 1. p. 
442. [juxt. Ed. Savil. Hom. 6.] (t. 1. 
Ρ- 595 a, d.).... Ἐάν τις ἴδῃ σε τὸν 
ἔτι γνώσιν εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀπερ- 
χόμενον, καὶ σάλπιγγας θεωροῦντα, 
οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄν- 
τος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ θαυμάζειν 
τὰ ᾿Ιουδαϊκὰ mpdypata;.... Ei 
μὴ εἴδωλον ἕστηκεν ἐκεῖ: ἀλλὰ δαί- 
μονες οἰκοῦσι τὸν τόπον᾽ καὶ τοῦτο 
οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα λέγω συναγωγῆς 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἐν Δάφνῃ" πονη- 
ρότερον γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ βάραθρον, ὃ δὴ 
καλοῦσι Ματρώνης. Καὶ γὰρ πολλοὺς 
ἤκουσα τῶν πιστῶν ἀναβαίνειν ἐκεῖ, 
καὶ παρακαθεύδειν τῷ τόπῳ" ἀλλὰ μὴ 
γένοιτό ποτε τούτους πιστοὺς προσ- 
εἰπεῖν" ἐμοὶ καὶ τὸ Ματρώνης καὶ τοῦ 
᾿Απόλλωνος ἱερὸν, ὁμοίως ἐστὶ βέβη- 
λον" εἰ δέ τίς μου τόλμαν καταγινώ- 
σκει, πάλιν ἐγὼ τὴν ἐσχάτην αὐτοῦ 
καταγνώσομαι μανίαν. Ἑἰπέ γάρ μοι, 
ὅπου δαίμονες οἰκοῦσιν, οὐχὶ ἀσεβείας 
ὡρίον ἐστὶ, κἂν μὴ ξόανον εἱστήκει ; 
ὅπου Χριστοκτόνοι συνέρχονται, ὅπου 
σταυρὸς ἐλαύνεται, ὅπου βλασφημεῖ- 
ται Θεὸς, ὅπου Πατὴρ ἀγνοεῖται, ὅπου 
Υἱὸς ὑβρίζεται, ὅπου Πνεύματος ἀτε- 
θεῖται χάρις ; 


278 The great crimes, 


pure pit of hell, which they call Matrona. I hear many of the 
faithful go thither, and sleep in the place. But God forbid I 
should call them the faithful. For the temple of Apollo and 
Matrona are equally profane. Is not that a place of impiety 
where devils dwell, although there be no image there? Where 
the murderers of Christ assemble, where the cross is cast out, 
where God is blasphemed, where the Father is not known, 
where the Son is reviled, where the grace of the Spirit is 
rejected?’ He particularly bewails those ®? who went either to 
see or join with them in the celebration of their fasts and fes- 
tivals, the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the 
Fast of the Great Day of Expiation, which came all in the month 
Tisri, or September, when he preached his sermons against 
the Jews. He notes also the wickedness of some*+, who would 
draw others by force to go and take an oath in a Jewish syna- 
gogue, upon a most unaccountable persuasion, that an oath 
given there was more formidable than any other whatsoever. 
For these and many other reasons, which he there 55 largely 
pursues, he styles all such only Half-Christians, Χριστιανοὶ ἐξ 
ἡμισείας. 

He has two other whole Sermons 56 against those who ob- 
served the Jewish fasts, and frequented their synagogues: in 
the latter of which 57 he addresses himself to them in these 
words : ‘ We have now clearly proved that the places, where 
the Jews assemble, are inhabited by devils. How then darest 
thou, after being in the chorus of devils, return to the assembly 


53 Ibid. t. 1. p. 433- (p. 588 a.) Χριστιανὸν εἰλικρινῆ, εἰς τὰ τῶν “E- 


XVI. vi. 


‘Eoprat τῶν ἀθλίων καὶ ταλαιπώρων 
Ιουδαίων / μέλλουσι προσελαύνειν συν- 
-exels καὶ ἐπάλληλοι, αἱ Σάλπιγγες, 
αἱ Σκηνοπηγίαι, ai Νηστεῖαι" καὶ ποὰλ- 
Aol τῶν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τεταγμένων, καὶ τὰ 
ἡμέτερα λεγόντων φρονεῖν, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ 
‘thy θέαν ἀπαντῶσι τῶν ἑορτῶν, οἱ δὲ 
καὶ συνεορτάζουσι᾽ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πο- 
νηρὸν ἔθος βούλομαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
ἀπελάσαι νῦν. 

55. Ibid. p. 437. (p. 591 ἃ, 6.) Καὶ 
γὰρ πρὸ τούτων τῶν τριῶν ἡμερῶν, 
πιστεύσατε, οὐ ψεύδομαι, γυναῖκά 
τινα εὐσχήμονα καὶ ἐλευθέραν, κοσ- 
μίαν καὶ πιστὴν, εἶδον ἀναγκαζομένην 
ὑπό τινος “μιαροῦ καὶ ἀναισθήτου, δο- 
κοῦντος εἶναι Χριστιανοῦ" οὐ γὰρ ἂν 
εἴποιμι τὸν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμῶντα 


βραίων εἰσελθεῖν, κἀκεῖ παρασχεῖν ὅρ- 
κον περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων αὐτῷ 
πραγμάτων". «ὁ δὲ πολλοὺς ἔφη πρὸς 
αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι, φοβερωτέρους τοὺς 
ἐκεῖ γενομένους ὅρκους εἶναι. 

55 [014. p. 440. (p. 593 b.) Ποίαν 
ἕξεις συγγνώμην, Χριστιανὸς ὼν ἐξ 
ἡμισείας ; 

56 Hom. 52. In eos, qui Pascha 
jejunant. [ juxt. Ed. Bened. ady. Jud. 
Hom. 3.] (ibid. p. 615 b.) ᾿Εννόησον 
πῶς διαβολικῆς τοῦτό ἐστιν εὐεργείας, 
k.T.A.—Hom. liii. In eos, qui cum 
Judezis jejunant. [juxt. Ed. Bened. 
adv. Jud. Hom. 2. 

χα 8. 721. (1 id. p. 605 a, b.) 
Οὐκ ἤκουσας ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ διαλέξει 
σαφῶς ἀποδείξαντος ἡμῖν τοῦ λόγου, 


apostasy, §c. 279 


of the Apostles? How is it that thou art not afraid, after 
communicating with those who shed the blood of Christ, to 
come and communicate at the holy table, and partake of that 
precious blood? Does not horror and trembling seize thee 
after having committed so great a wickedness? Dost thou not 
reverence the holy table? Wherefore, I exhort you, admonish 
and edify one another. If any man be a catechumen, who 
labours under this distemper, let him be driven from the doors 
of the church: if he be one of the faithful, and initiated in the 
holy mysteries, let him be driven from the holy table. ΑἸ] sins 
need not exhortation and counsel: there are some that natu- 
rally require a more quick and sharp abscission. I therefore 
from henceforth shall abstain from all further admonition, and 
protest and proclaim, If any man love not the Lord Jesus 
Christ, let him be anathema! And what greater argument can 
there be of any one’s not loving Christ, than his communicating 
with those in their festivals who killed Christ? It is not I that 
anathematize these, but Paul; yea Christ that speaks by Paul, 


and says, ‘“ Whoever of you are justified by the law, ye are 


3) 3 


fallen from grace. 


In his comment upon those words of 


St. Paul to Titus 58, “ Rebuke them sharply, that they may 


ὅτι καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτὰς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
καὶ τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς συλλέγονται, 
δαίμονες κατοικοῦσι; Πῶς οὖν, εἰπέ 
μοι, τολμᾶς μετὰ δαιμόνων χορεύσας 
πρὸς τὸν τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων σύλλογον 
ἐπανελθεῖν; Πῶς δὲ οὐ φρίττεις ἀπ- 
ελθὼν καὶ κοινωνήσας ἐκείνοις, τοῖς 
τὸ αἷμα ἐκχέουσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐλθεῖν 
καὶ κοινωνῆσαι τῆς ἱερᾶς τραπέζης, 
καὶ τοῦ αἵματος μετασχεῖν τοῦ τιμίου; 
Οὐ φρίττεις, οὐ δέδοικας τοιαῦτα πα- 
ρανομῶν ; Τὴν τράπεζαν αὐτὴν οὐκ 
αἰδῇ; Ταῦτα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ διελέ- 
χθην, ταῦτα πρὸς ἐκείνους ὑμεῖς, κἀ- 
κεῖνοι πρὸς τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας" Εἷς 
τὸν ἕνα οἰκοδομεῖτε. Κἂν μὲν κατη- 
χούμενος ἢ ὁ τὰ τοιαῦτα νοσῶν, τῶν 
προθύρων εἰργέσθω" ἂν δὲ πιστὸς καὶ 
μεμνημένος, τῆς ἱερᾶς τραπέζης ἀπε- 
λαυνέσθω" οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἁμαρτή- 
ματα παραινέσεως δεῖται καὶ συμβου- 
λῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἃ τομῇ συντόμῳ καὶ 
ὀξυτάτῃ διορθοῦσθαι πέφυκε. Καὶ 
καθάπερ τῶν τραυμάτων τὰ μὲν ἀνεκ- 
τότερα προσηνεστέροις εἴκει “Φαρμά- 
κοις, τὰ δὲ σεσηπότα καὶ ἀνίατα καὶ 


τὸ λοιπὸν ἐπινεμόμενα σῶμα, αἰχμῆς 
σιδήρου δεῖται καὶ φλογός" οὕτω δὴ 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, τὰ μὲν πα- 
ραινέσεως μακροτέρας χρείαν ἔ ἔχοντα, 
τὰ δὲ ἐλέγχων ἀποτόμων. , Διόπερ καὶ 
ὁ Παῦλος ἐκέλευσε μὴ πάντα παραι- 
νεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλέγχειν ἀποτόμως, 
οὕτω λέγων, Ae ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε av~ 
τοὺς ἀποτόμως" _ ἐλέγξωμεν οὖν αὐτοὺς 
ἀποτόμως νῦν, ἵνα ἐπὶ τοῖς φθάσασιν 
αἰσχυνθέντες καὶ καταγνόντες ἑαυτῶν, 
la A > 4 ΄-ὦ , 

μηκέτι THY ἀπὸ τῆς παρανόμου νὴ- 
στείας δέξωνται λύμην. Διὰ ταῦτα 
καὶ ἐγὼ τὴν παραίνεσιν λοιπὸν ἀφεὶς, 
μαρτύρομαι καὶ βοῶ" Et τις οὐ φιλεῖ 
τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, ἔστω 
ἀνάθεμα. Τοῦ δὲ μὴ φιλεῖν τὸν Κύ- 
ριον τί μεῖζον, ἂν γένοιτο τεκμήριον, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὅταν τοὺς ἀποκτείνοντας αὐτὸν 
κοινωνοὺς ἔχῃ τις τῆς ἑορτῆς ; τούτους 
οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀνεθεμάτισα, ἀλλὰ Παῦλος" 
μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ Παῦλος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ὁ Χρι- 
στὸς, ὁ δι ἐκείνου λαλῶν, καὶ ὁ ἐν 
τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰπὼν, Ὅτι ἐν νόμῳ 
δικαϊούμενοι τῆς χάριτος ἐξέπεσον. 


58 Hom. 3. in Tit. p. 1709. (t. 11. 


280 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


be sound in the faith,” he speaks again of this matter: ‘If 
they who make a distinction of meats are not sound, but weak, 
what shall we say of those who fast with the Jews, and observe 
their sabbaths with them, and go to their synagogues, to that 
at Daphne, called the cave of Matrona, and that in Cilicia, 
called the place of Tropus, or Saturn ?? 

In his sixth Homily against the Jews 59, he inveighs yehe- 
mently against those who went to the synagogues to get 
charms and amulets to cure diseases, in which the Jews pre- 
tended to a peculiar art above others, and this tempted many 
vain Christians to have recourse to them: but of this I have 
spoken before in the last chapter out of Chrysostom ©, and 
shall only here add, that the Jews boasted much of this art as 
coming to them from some apocryphal writings of King Solo- 
mon, such as his Book of Prayers, or Enchantments to cure 
Diseases, and his Book of Exorcisms, or Conjurations to cast 
out Devils, both which are mentioned by Josephus ®!, who 
magnifies the art as still remaining among them, speaking of 
one Eleazer, who, according to the rules there prescribed, pre- 
tended to cure one possessed with a devil in the presence of 
Vespasian. Origen ® also mentions these books, and says some 


Ρ. 746 c.) Εἰ δὲ of βρώματα ἐπιτη- ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκδιώκουσε. Καὶ αὕτη μέ- 


ροῦντες οὐχ ὑγιαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ νο- 
σοῦσι καὶ ἀσθενοῦσι, το τ τί ἂν εἴς 
ποιμι [8]. εἴποι τις] περὶ τῶν τὰ 
αὐτὰ νηστευόντων αὐτοῖς ; περὶ τῶν 
σαββατιζόντων : 3 “περὶ τῶν εἰς τόπους 
ἀπερχομένων ἐκείνοις ἀφιερωμένους ; 
τὸν ἐν Δάφνῃ λέγω, τὸ τῆς Marpovys 
λεγόμενον σπήλαιον, τὸν ἐν Κιλικίᾳ 
τόπον, τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου λεγόμενον. 

_ 59 Hom. 6. in Judeos. t. 1. p. 536, 
&c. See before, ch. 5. s. 6. p. 254. 
n. 87. 

60 ‘Eons 21. ad Pop. Antioch. al. 
Cateches. ad Illuminand. 2. See 
ch. 5. 8. 8. p. 265. n. 19; especially 
the latter sledees of the first portion 
of that note. Ep. ] 

61 Antiquit. 1. 8. c. 11. ἢ. 5. (V. I. 
P- 380. 13.) Παρέσχε δ᾽ αὐτῷ μαθεῖν 
ὁ Θεὸς καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων 
τέχνην εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ θεραπείαν 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις" ἐπῳδάς τε συνταξά- 
μενος, αἷς παρηγορεῖται τὰ νοσήματα, 
καὶ τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων κατέλειπεν" 
οἷς ἐνδούμενα τὰ δαιμόνια ὡς μηκέτ᾽ 


χρι νῦν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία πλεῖστον 
ἰσχύει. Ἱστόρησα γάρ τινα ᾿Ἐλεά- 
(apov τῶν ὁμοφύλων, Οὐεσπασιανοῦ 
παρόντος καὶ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
χιλιάρχων ‘Kal ἄλλου στρατιωτικοῦ 
πλήθους, τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων λαμ- 
βανομένους ἀπολύοντα τούτων. ῳὋὉ δὲ 
τῆς θεραπείας τρόπος τοιοῦτος ἦν. 
Προσφέρων ταῖς ῥισὶ τοῦ δαιμονιζο- 
μένου τὸν δακτύλιον, ἔχοντα ὑπὸ τῇ 
σφραγίδι ῥίζαν ἐξ ὧν ὑπέδειξε Σολο- 
μὼν, ἔπειτα ἐξεῖλκεν ὀσφραινομένῳ 
διὰ τῶν μυκτήρων τὸ δαιμόνιον" καὶ, 
πεσόντος εὐθὺς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. μηκέτ᾽ 
εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπανελθεῖν & ὥρκου, Σολομῶ- 
νός τε μεμνημένος, καὶ τὰς ἐπῳδὰς, ἃς 
συνέθηκεν ἐκεῖνος, ἐπιλέγων. 

02 Tractat. 35. [4]. Comment. Se- 
ries, n. 110.] in bs saps p. 188. (t. 3. 
Ρ. 910 f.).... Non est secundum 
potestatem datam a Salvatore adju- 
rare demonia: Judaicum enim est. 
Hoc etsi aliquando a nostris tale 
aliquid fiat, simile fit ei, quod a Sa- 
lomone scriptis adjurationibus solent 


§ 3,4. 281 


Christians abjured devils after the same manner by forms out 
of Apocryphal and Hebrew books, in imitation of those of 
Solomon, which he does by no means allow, but says it is 
Judaical, and not according to the power given by Christ to 
his disciples. By all which it appears, that as the Jews pre- 
tended much to this power, so many Christians were so vain as 
to have secret recourse to them, (for Chrysostom says they 
were ashamed to do it in public,) imagining their enchantments 
to be of more efficacy than any others. Which was a double 
crime, first to make use of charms, and then to take them 
from the enemies of Christ, to the flagrant scandal of the 
Christian religion. Whenever therefore any were convicted 
of this crime, they were sure to feel the utmost severity of 
ecclesiastical censure. 

4, Another sort of apostates were such as fell away volun- με ρῶν = 
tarily into Heathenism, after they had for some time made oie 
profession of Christianity. These differed from common lapsers eee 
into idolatry in this, that the common lapsers fell by violence, 
and the fear and terror of persecution ; but these fell away by 
principle and choice, and out of a dislike to religion and love 
of Gentilism, which they preferred before the religion of 
Christ, when they might without any molestation have con- 
tinued in it. And as the one usually returned as soon as they 
had opportunity, so the other commonly continued apostates 
all their days. The imperial laws, at least from the time of 
Theodosius, denied such the common privilege of Roman sub- 
jects, depriving them of the power of disposing of their estates 
by will. As appears from two laws of Theodosius the Great 
in the Theodosian Code®, which the other succeeding emperors 
confirmed. Particularly Valentinian Junior® not only denied 


apostasy, Se. 


deemones adjurari. Sed ipsi, qui tusque migrarunt, omnem in quam- 


utuntur adjurationibus illis, aliquo- 
ties nec idoneis constitutis libris 
utuntur. Quibusdam autem et de 
Hebreo acceptis adjurant dzemonia. 

62 L.16. tit. 7. de Apostatis, leg. 
I. (t.6. p. 203.) His, qui ex Chris- 
tianis Pagani facti sunt, eripiatur 
facultas jusque testandi. Omne de- 
functi, si quod est, testamentum, 
submota conditione, rescindatur.— 
Leg. 2. (ibid. p. 204.) Christianis ac 
fidelibus, qui ad Paganos ritus cul- 


cunque personam testamenti con- 
dendi interdicimus potestatem, ut 
sint absque jure Romano.—Conf. 
ibid. legg. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 

63 Tbid. leg. 4. (p. 207.) Hi, qui 
sanctam fidem prodiderint et sanc- 
tum baptisma profanaverint, a con- 
sortio omnium segregati, sint a tes- 
timoniis alieni, ... testamenti non 
habeant factionem : nulli in heredi- 
tate succedant, a nemine scribantur 
heredes. Quos etiam precepisse- 


282 The great crimes, 


them the power of making their own wills, but of receiving 
any benefit from others by will: no man might make them his 
heirs, nor could they succeed to any inheritance. They were 
to have no commerce or society with others; their testimony 
was not to be taken in law; they were to be infamous and of 
no credit among men, among whom they were allowed to live 
without banishing, only to make it the greater punishment to 
live among men, and not enjoy the common privileges of men. 
Nay, they were never to regain their ancient state; though 
they repented and returned, this should be no benefit to 
them in this respect; their repentance should never oblite- 
rate their crime, because they had broken their faith to God. 
This was their condition in temporals. As to their spiritual 
estate, by some canons of the Church they were as severely 
treated. 

The Council of Eliberis®! denies communion to the last to 
all such apostates, because they doubled their crime, not only 
in absenting from the Church, but in defiling themselves with 
idolatry also. Whereas such lower apostates as only absented 
themselves from religious assemblies for a long time®, and did 
not commit idolatry, if afterward they returned again to the 
Church they might be admitted upon ten years’ penance to the 
communion. Cyprian® says, many of his predecessors in 
Afric denied communion to the very last to all such as were 


XVI. vi. 


mus procul abjici, ac longius aman- 
dari, nisi pene visum fuissent esse 
majoris, versari inter homines, et ho- 
minum carere suffragiis. Sed nec 
unquam in statum pristinum rever- 
tentur; non flagitium morum obli- 
teretur peenitentia, &c.—Leg. 5. (p. 
208.) Si quis splendor collatus est 
in eos...perdant, ut de loco suo 
statuque dejecti, perpetua urantur 
infamia, &c.—Leg. 6. (p. 210.)... 
Eos, qui cum essent Christiani, ido- 
lorum se superstitione impia macu- 
laverint, hac poena persequitur, ut 
testandi in alienos non _ habeant 
facultatem, &c.—Leg. 7. (p. 211.) 
Apostatarum sacrilegum nomen sin- 
gulorum vox continue accusationis 
incesset, et nullis finita temporibus 
hujuscemodi criminis arceatur in- 
dago, &c.—Ibid. 1. 11. tit. 39. de 


Fide Testium, leg. 11. (t. 4. p. 332-) 
Hi, qui sanctam fidem prodiderint 
et sacrum baptisma profanarint, a 
consortio omnium segregati, sint a 
testimoniis alieni, &c. 

64 C.1. (t.1. p.g69e.) Placuit 
inter eos, qui post fidem baptismi 
salutaris adulta etate et templum 
idololatraturus accesserit, et fecerit 
quod est crimen principale, quia est 
summum scelus, nec in fine eum 
communionem accipere. 

65 C. 46. (ibid. p.975 ἃ.) Si quis 
fidelis apostata per infinita tempora 
ad ecclesiam non accesserit; si ta- 
men aliquando fuerit reversus, nec 
fuerit idololatra, post decem annos 
placuit communionem accipere. 

66 Ep. 52. [8]. 55.] ad Antonian. 
p-110. See before, ch. 4. 8. 5. p. 
204. n.22. Et quidem, &c. 





apostasy, §¢. 283 


guilty of the three great crimes, apostasy, adultery, and 
murder. And though this rigour was a little abated in his 
time, yet they still held idolatrous apostates to penance all 
their lives. Which is also noted by Siricius®’, bishop of Rome, 
who says ‘ apostates were to do penance as long as they lived, 
and only to have the grace of reconciliation at the point of 
death.’ And this favour was allowed them only upon proviso, 
that they returned and submitted to penance voluntarily in 
their lifetime, before any necessity or sickness drove them to 
it: for if they continued apostates to the last extremity, and 
only desired to be reconciled when the fear of imminent death 
was upon them, then Cyprian 58 assures us it was denied them ; 
because it was not repentance, but the fear of approaching 
death only that made them desire a reconciliation. And the 
first Council of Arles made a like decree®9, that such apostates 
should not be received to communion unless they recovered 
and brought forth fruits worthy of repentance. The true rea- 
son of which severity was to deter men from depending too 
much on a death-bed repentance. For except in the case of 
martyrdom, which Cyprian7° allows, such apostates had no 
time to demonstrate by their works that they were real peni- 
tents; and therefore the Church denied them absolution7!, and 


remitted them wholly to God’s unerring judgment. 


67 Ep. 1. ad Himerium, c. 3. (CC. 
t.2. p. 1018 e.)... His [apostatis], 
quamdiu vivunt, agenda peenitentia 
est, &c.—See before, ch. 4. s. 5. 
p. 203. n. 19. 

68 Ep. ad, Antonian. p. 111. See 
as before, p. 204, the last clause of 
τι, 23. 

69 C.23. See before, ibid. ἢ. 24. 

70 De Pooks, p. 127. (Ρ. 91.) Sic 
hic Casto et Aimilio aliquando Do- 
minus ignoyit: sic in prima con- 
gressione devictos, victores in se- 
cundo prelio reddidit, ut fortiores 
ignibus fierent, qui ignibus ante ces- 
sissent; et unde superati essent, 
inde superarent. Deprecabantur illi 
non lacrymarum miseratione, sed 
vulnerum ; nec sola lamentabili voce, 
sed laceratione corporis et dolore. 
Manabat pro fletibus sanguis, et pro 
lacrymis cruor semiustulatis visceri- 
bus defluebat, &c. 

7. (Vid. Ep. 14. [3]. 19.] (p. 


198.) Satis plene scripsisse me... 
credo, ut qui libellum a martyri- 
bus acceperint et auxilio eorum ad- 
juvari apud Dominum in delictis 
suis possunt, si premi infirmitate 
aliqua et periculo cceperint, exomo- 
logesi facta, et manu eis a vobis in 
peenitentia imposita, cum pace a 
martyribus ibi promissa ad Domi- 
num remittatur. Ceteri vero... 
expectent de Domini protectione ec- 
clesiz ipsius publicam pacem.— 
Conf. Ep. 52. [4]. 55.] ad Antonian. 
p- 102. (p.248.)... Poenitentiam non 
agentes, nec dolorem delictorum 
suorum toto corde et manifesta la- 
mentationis suze professione testan- 
tes, prohibendos omnino censuimus 
a spe communicationis et pacis, si 
in infirmitate atque in periculo cee- 
perint deprecari: quia rogare illos 
non delicti pcenitentia, sed mortis 
ne admonitio compellit, &c. 
Ὁ. 


284. The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


Of heretics 5. The next sort of delinquents against the First Command- 

en τς 4 ment were heretics and schismatics, the one of which trans- 

their pn-  gressed against the doctrine of faith delivered by the Church, 

ar ea Ne and the other against the unity of the worship and discipline, 

siasticaland which compacted the Church into one mystical body of Christ. 

civil. ° - 
Tn each of these there were several degrees of sin, which were 
accordingly treated with different degrees of ecclesiastical cen- 
sure. But because it was impossible for lawgivers to know the 
particular motives and inducements that might engage men in 
heresy or schism, therefore the laws were made in general 
terms against them, and the allowances that were proper to be 
made upon any occasion for the abatement of the rigour of. 
them, with respect to particular persons, were left to the dis- 
cretion of the judges that were to put them in execution. 

᾿ I shall first give a short account of the civil penalties that 

were inflicted on them by the imperial laws of the State, and 
then consider the ecclesiastical punishments that were inflicted 
on them by the laws of the Church. 

Of the civil 6. The laws of the State made against hereties and schis- 

oad matics by the Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, 

flicted on are chiefly comprised under one title, De Hereticis, in the 


pee Theodosian Code, which are too many and long to be here 

State. recited: therefore I shall only give a short abstract of them as 
they are collected by Gothofred72 in his premonition to that 
title. There he observes eleven distinct kinds of punish- 
ment inflicted on them in general, besides the particular laws 
that were made against their teachers, their bishops and 
clergy, and their conventicles, and all such as favoured or 
abetted them. 

The first of these is the general note of infamy affixed to 
them all in common: the laws always styling them infamous 
persons. De Hereticis, lege. 7, 13, 54. De Fide Catholica, 
leg. 2. 

Secondly, the affixing on some particular sects special names 
of infamy and reproach; as when Constantine ordered the 
Arians to be called Porphyrians ; and Theodosius Junior, the 
Nestorians to be branded with the name of Simonians. De 
Hereticis, leg. 66. 


72 Paratitl. ad Cod. Theod. 1.16. tit. 5. de Hereticis. (t. 6. p. 106.) 
Qua vero conditione, &c. 


285 


Thirdly, all commerce forbidden to be held with them. De 
Heereticis, legg. 17, 18, 36, 40, 48. 

Fourthly, the depriving them of all offices of profit and 
dignity in the militia palatina, or civil administration. 
Which was first enacted by Theodosius, and confirmed by the 
succeeding emperors; legge. 9, 25, 29, 42, 48, 58, 61, 65. 
Particularly Gothofred7? commends that as an elegant saying 
of Honorius, De Heereticis7*, leg. 42. Nullus vobis sit aliqua 
ratione conjunctus, qui a nobis fide et religione discedat. We 
will have no one employed about us that differs from us in 
faith and religion. Yet he observes7° that all burdensome 
offices, both of the camp and curia, what we now call military 
and municipal offices, were imposed upon them. Which is 

confirmed by one of Justinian’s Novels’®, which the learned 
reader may see in the margin. 

Fifthly, they were rendered intestate, that is, they were un- 
qualified either to dispose of their estates by will, or receive 
estates from any others. Thus particularly the Manichees 
were punished, De Hereticis, lege. 7, 9, 18, 65. De Apostatis, 
leg. 3. And so the Eumonians, De Hereticis, legg. 17, 25, 
49, 50, 58. And the Donatists, De Hereticis, leg. 54, and 
leg. 4, Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. Pursuant to which 
laws all the goods of heretics, or whatever was left them, were 
liable to be confiscated either to the emperor’s exchequer, or 
to the people of Rome, De Hereticis, lege. 7, 9, 17, 18, 49. 

Sixthly, the right of giving or receiving donations was denied 
them, De Hereticis, lege. 7, 9, 36,40, 49, 50, 58, 65, and leg. 
4, Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. Only by one law some 
few persons were excepted, to whom they might give dona- 
tions, De Hereticis, leg. 65. 


§ 5, 6. heresy, §c. 


73 (Ibid. (p. 109. ad summ.)... 
Elegans est Honorii dictum leg. 42. 
Nullus nobis, ἕο. Ep. |] 

74 Tbid. ut supr. (p. 163.) 

75 Tbid. (p. 109.]... Et tamen ne- 
que a castrensi seu armata militia 
prohibiti leg. 65, neque a curia aut 
cohortali militia, lege. 48, 61, 65. 

76 Novel. 45. Pref. (t.5. p. 263.) 
..-.Quapropter curiam exerceant 
hujusmodi homines, et nimis inge- 
miscentes, et curialibus functioni- 
bus, sicut etiam officialibus, ut du- 


dum sancitum est, et nulla religio 
ab ejusmodi nos [hos ?] excipiat for- 
tuna... Indigni tamen curiali sint 
honore, et quoniam leges plurima 
curialibus prebent privilegia, et ut 
non cedantur, neque ad aliam du- 
cantur provinciam, et alia plurima, 
horum nullo fruantur... Kt com- 
pleant corporalia, et pecuniariz mu- 
nera, et nulla ab his eripiat eos lex : 
honore vero fruantur nullo, sed sint 
in turpitudine fortune, in qua et 
animam volunt esse. 


286 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


Seventhly, the Manichees, Cataphrygians, Priscillianists, or 
followers of Priscilla, the Montanists, Donatists, and all that 
were rebaptized by them, are deprived of the right of con- 
tracting, buying, and selling, De Hereticis, lege. 40, 48, 54, 
and leg. 4, Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. 

Eighthly, pecuniary mulcts and fines were imposed upon 
them, De Hereticis, lege. 39, 52, 54. And these are often 
mentioned by St. Austin?7, who yet intimates that they were 
seldom executed against them, and frequently begged off by 


the Catholics interceding for them. 
Ninthly, they were proscribed, transported, and banished, 
De Hereticis, legg: 13, 14; 15; 16,18, 20,529) 40,52 


57> 58. 


and all who opposed the decrees of the Council of Nice. 


Thus Sozomen’7§ says, Constantine banished Arius, 


And 


St. Austin79 says, Constantine banished the Donatists; and all 


77 Ep. 68. [al. 88.] ad Januar. p. 
124. (t. 2. p. 216 f.)...Poena decem 
librarum auri, quz in hereticos ab 
imperatoribus fuerat constituta, &c. 
—Conf. Ep. 1. [al. 185. ¢. 7.7 (t. 2. 
p- 653 g,a. p.654a.)...Silegem... 
Theodosii, quain generaliter in om- 
nes hereticos promulgavit, ut quis- 
quis eorum episcopus vel clericus ubi- 
libet esset inventus, decem libris auri 
multaretur.— Epp. 166, 167, 173. 
(41. 105, 89, 66.)—Cont. Crescon. 
1. 3. c. 47. (t. 9. p. 462 a.) Quid 
aliud, nisi quod pars Donati jam 
sciret, se ad illam poenam aurariam 
cum ceteris hzereticis pertinere, &c.? 
—Cont. Ep. Parmenian. ].1. c. 12. 
(ibid. p. 23 g.) Aliorum autem im- 
peratorum leges, que vehementer 
adversus eos late sunt, quis ignorat ? 
In quibus una generalis adversus 
omnes, qui Christianos se dici vo- 
lunt, et ecclesize Catholicee non com- 
municant, sed in suis separatim con- 
venticulis congregantur, id continet, 
Ut vel ordinator clerici, vel ipse or- 
dinatus denis libris auri mulctentur. 

78 L. 3. €. 20. °(¥. 2. Ὁ 38. 45:) 
‘Yrepopio τε φυγῇ (ημιωθήσεσθαι 
προηγόρευσε τὸν ἐναντίον τῶν δεδογ- 
μένων ἐρχόμενον, ὡς διαφθείραντα 
τοὺς θείους ὅρους. 

79 Ep. 152. [4]. 141.] ad Donatist. 
(t. 2. p. 460 b.)... Protulerunt lite- 
ras... Constantini, ad vicarium Ve- 
rinum datas, ubi eos graviter detes- 


tatur, et propterea dicit de exsilio 
relaxandos et furori suo dimitten- 
dos, quia jam Deus cceperat in illos 
vindicare.. .quando eos vehementer 
exsecratus; ideo jussit, ut de exsilio 
dimitterentur, ut Deo judice, sicut 
etiam coeperant, punirentur.—Ep. 
166. p. 289. [al. 105. c. 2.] (ibid. 
p- 299 g.) Tunc Constantinus prior 
contra partem Donati severissimam 
legem dedit. Hunc imitati filii ejus 
talia preceperunt. Quibus succe- 
dens Julianus, desertor Christi et 
inimicus, supplicantibus  vestris, 
Rogatiano et Pontio, libertatem per- 
ditionis parti Donati permisit: de- 
nique tune reddidit basilicas hzre- 
ticis, quando templa dzmoniis, eo 
modo putans Christianum nomen 
posse perire de terris, si unitati ec- 
clesiz, de qua lapsus fuerat, invi- 
deret, et sacrilegas dissensiones li- 
beras esse permitteret...... Huic 
successit Jovianus, qui quoniam 
cito mortuus est, nihil de rebus ta- 
libus jussit. Deinde Valentinianus ; 
legite que contra vos jusserit. Inde 
Gratianus et Theodosius ; legite, 
quando vultis, quae de vobis consti- 
tuerint. Quid ergo de filiis Theo- 
dosii miramini, quasi aliud in hac 
causa sequi debuerint, quam Con- 
stantini judicium per tot Christia- 
nos imperatores firmissime custodi- 
tum? 


§ 6. 


heresy, §€. 287 


the succeeding emperors, except Julian the apostate, made se- 
vere laws against them. And Julian only recalled them in 
devilish policy, thinking by division of Christians into several 
sects to destroy them totally out of the world. Honorius 
banished Jovinian into Boa, an island of Dalmatia, as is said 
in the law particularly made against him° in the Code. And 
Theodosius Junior banished Nestorius, as the historians §! note, 
after the Council of Ephesus had deposed him. 

Tenthly, they were also in many cases subjected to corporal 
punishment, scourging, &c., before they were sent into banish- 
ment, De Hereticis, legg. 21, 53, 54; 57: and leg. 4, Ne sanc- 
tum baptisma tteretur. 

Eleyenthly and finally, in some special cases they were terrified 
by sanguinary laws, which made them liable to death, though 
by the connivance of the princes, or the intercession of the 
Church, they were rarely put in execution against them. 
Gothofred says, the first law of this kind was made by Theo- 
dosius, anno 382, against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the 
Hydroparastate, and-the Manichees, which is the ninth law 
De Hereticis. After which example, many other such laws 
were made against the heretical priests, who pretended to 
exercise their superstition against the prohibition of the law : 
and against such possessors as allowed them a conventicle to 
meet in: and against such as retained and concealed their per- 
nicious books. De Hereticis, legg. 15, 16, 34, 35; 36, 38; 43, 44, 
51, 53> 54: 56, 63. 

Besides these laws and punishments, which chiefly affected 
their persons, Gothofred observes several other laws which 
tended to the extirpation of heresy. Such as, 

First, those which forbid heretical teachers to propagate 
their doctrine publicly or privately. De Hereticis, legg. 3, 5, 
13, 24, and leg. 2, Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. 


80 L. 16. tit. 5. de Hereticis, leg. 
53. (t.6. p. 174.) Jovianum [leg. 
Jovinianum] sacrilegos agere con- 
ventus extra muros urbis sacratis- 
simz episcoporum querela deplo- 
rat. Quare supra memoratum cor- 
ripi precipimus, et contusum plum- 
bo, cum ceteris suis participibus et 
ministris, exsilio coérceri: ipsum 
autem machinatorem in insulam 


Boam festina celeritate deduci. 

81 Socrat. 1. 7. c. 34. (Vv. 2. p. 
384. 6.)...Kal ἄχρι viv καθῃρημένος, 
eis ἐξορίαν πεμφθεὶς eis τὴν “Oacw 
karoxet.—Evagyr. 1. 1. c. 7. (V. 3. Ρ. 
257- 23-) ‘Qs καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν τῆς 
᾿Αντιόχου πρόεδρον ταῦτα μηνύσαι, 
ἀειφυγίᾳ τε τὸν Νεστόριον καταδι- 
κασθῆναι. 


288 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


Secondly, the laws which forbid heretics to hold public dis- 
putations by gathering companies of people together. De Ha- 
reticis, leg. 46, and De his qui super religione contendunt, 
legy. , 2, 2. 

Thirdly, those which forbid heretics to ordain bishops, pres- 
byters, or any other clergy. De Hereticis, lege. 12, 14, 21, 
22, 2A, 20, 27, 57,50, 05. 

Fourthly, such as deny to those that are so ordained the 
names and privileges of bishops and clergy. De Hereticis, 
legg. 1, 24, 26, 28. De Episcopis, legg. 2, 3, and leg. 1, Ne 
sanctum baptisma iteretur. 

Fifthly, such laws as prohibit all heretical conventicles and 
assemblies. De Herreticis, lege. 4, 5, 6, 10, ΤΙ, 12, 14,15, 19, 
20, 21, 26, 30, 45, 52, 53, 54, 59, 65, and leg. 7, Ne sanctum 
baptisma tteretur. 

Sixthly, such as forbid heretics to build conventiites De 
Hereticis, legg. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 30, 65, and De Fide Catho- 
Lica, leg. 3; and forbid any one to leave any legacy to them, 
De Heereticis, leg. 65; and ordering both the conyenticles 
and whatever was so bequeathed to them, either to be confis- 
cated to the public exchequer, De Hereticis, lege. 3, 4, 8, 12, 
21, 30; or else to be given to the use of the Catholic Churches, 
De Hereticis, legg. 43, 52, 54, 56, 57, 65, and leg. 2, Ne 
sanctum baptisma iteretur. Only excepting the Novatians, to 
whom Constantine showed a little favour®?, because though 
they were schismatical, yet they held to the Catholic faith ; De 
Hereticis, leg. 2. 

Seventhly, such laws as allow slaves to inform against their 
heretical masters, and gain their freedom by coming over to 
the Church. De Hereticis, leg. 40, and leg. 4, Ve sanctum 
baptisma iteretur. 

Kighthly, such laws as deny the children of heretical parents 
their patrimony and inheritance, except they returned to the 
Catholic Church. De Herreticis, lege. 7, 9, 40, and leg. 7, Ne 
sanctum baptisma iteretur. 


82 [Vid. Socrat. 1. 2. c. 38. (v. 2. —Sozom. 1. 8. 6. 1. (ibid. Ρ. 824. 


145. 24.) .. Εἰδὼς καὶ αὐτοὺς φρο- 
νοῦντας τὸ οούσιον. —L. Bat Cus. 
(ibid. p. aah Pay Ὁ yap βασιλεὺς 
θαυμάσας αὐτῶν τὴν περὶ τοὺς οἰκεί- 
vos κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὁμόνοιαν, κι τ. Δ. 


26.) Οὔτε γὰρ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις 
ἢ νόμοις ὁμοίως ταῖς ἄλλαις αἱρέσεσιν 
ἔνοχοι ἧσαν, ὡς ὁμοούσιον Τριάδα 


δοξάζοντες. Ep.] 


heresy, &c. 289 


Ninthly, such laws as order the books of heretics to be 
burned. De Hereticis, legg. 34, 65. 

This is the short account of those several penal laws which 
the emperors made against heretics from the time of Con- 
stantine to Theodosius Junior and Valentinian HJ, which the 
learned reader may find at length under their respective titles, 
both in the Theodosian and in the Justinian Code. It is suffi- 
cient here to have given an abstract of them, which may serve 
to give some light to the laws of the Church that were made 
against them, which I now proceed to give a more particular 
account of, as more properly relating to the discipline of the 
Church. 

7. And here we may observe, in the first place, that heresy How here- 
was always accounted one of the principal crimes that a ΣΕ Σ 
Christian could be guilty of, as being a sort of apostasy from med Ἐπ 
the faith, and a voluntary apostasy, which was a circumstance Fach 
that added much to the heinousness of the offence. Therefore ἘΠῚ ΡΣ 
Cyprian, comparing the crimes of heretics and schismatics thematized 
with those that lapsed into idolatry by the-violence of persecu- °"¢ 4, 
tion, says, ‘ this is a worse crime than that which the lapsers Church. 
may seem to haye committed, who yet do a severe penance for 
their crime, and implore the mercy of God by a long and ple- 
nary satisfaction. The one seeks to the Church, and humbly 
intreats her fayour; the other resists the Church, and pro- 
claims open war against her. The one has the excuse of ne- 
cessity: the other is detained in his crime by his own will only. 

He that lapses, hurts himself alone: but he that endeavours to 
make an heresy or schism, draws many others with him into 
the same delusion. Here is only the loss of one soul : but there 


a multitude is drawn into danger. The lapser is sensible that 


§ 6, 7. 


83 De Unitat. Eccles. p. 117. unius est damnum; illic periculum 


(p. 84.) Pejus hoc crimen [heresis] 
est, quam quod admisisse lapsi vi- 
dentur ; qui tamen, in peenitentia 
criminis constituti, Deum plenis sa- 
tisfactionibus deprecantur. Hic ec- 
clesia queeritur et rogatur ; illic ec- 
clesia repugnatur. Hic potest ne- 
cessitas fuisse; illic voluntas tenetur 
in scelere. Hic, qui lapsus est, sibi 
tantum nocuit ; illic, qui heresin vel 
schisma facere conatus est, multos 
secum trahendo decepit. Hic anime 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


plurimorum. Certe peccasse se hic 
et intelligit, et lamentatur, et plangit; 
ille tumens in peccato suo, et in ip- 
sis sibi delictis placens, a matre filios 
segregat, oves a pastore solicitat, 
Dei sacramenta disturbat. Et cum 
lapsus semel peccaverit, ille quotidie 
peccat. Postremo lapsus, martyrium 
postmodum consecutus, potest regni 
promissa percipere; ille, si extra ec- 
clesiam fuerit occisus, ad ecclesiz 
non potest preemia pervenire. 


τ 


290 XVI. vi. 


The great crimes, 


he has committed a fault, and therefore he mourns and laments 
for it: but the other grows proud, and swells in his crime, and 
pleasing himself in his errors he divides the children from the 
mother, tempts and solicits the sheep from the shepherd, and 
disturbs the sacraments of God. And whereas a lapser sins but 
once, he sins every day. Finally, a lapser may afterward be- 
come a martyr, and obtain the promises of the kingdom; but 
the other, being out of the Church, cannot attain to the re- 
wards of the Church, although he be slain for religion.” This 
last argument is often insisted on by Cyprian*, and St. Aus- 
ἐϊη 55 and Chrysostom 56 and others, to deter men from en- 
gaging in heresy and schism: and it implies, that heretics did 
voluntarily cut themselves off from the communion of the 
Church, and stood “condemned of themselves,” (as the Apostle 57 


84 Tbid. p. 109. (p. 78.) Quelquis 
ab ecclesia segregatus adulteree jun- 
gitur, a promissis ecclesiz separa- 
tur. Nec pervenit ad Christi pre- 
mia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. 
—Ibid. p. 113. (p. 81.) Tales etiamsi 
occisi in confessione nominis fue- 
rint, macula ista nec sanguine ablu- 
itur. Inexpiabilis et gravis culpa 
discordiz nec passione purgatur. 
Esse martyr non potest, qui in ec- 
clesia non est: ad regnum pervenire 
non poterit, qui eam, que regnatura 
est, derelinquit.—Ibid. p.114.(p.82.) 
Cum Deo manere non possunt, qui 
esse in ecclesia Dei unanimes nolu- 
erunt: ardeant licet flammis, et ig- 
nibus traditi, vel objecti bestiis, ani- 
mas suas ponant; non erit illa fidei 
corona, sed poena perfidiz ; nec re- 
ligiose virtutis exitus gloriosus, sed 
desperationis interitus. Occidi talis 
potest, coronari non potest.— Ep. 
52. [8]. 55.] ad Antonian. p. 108. 
(p. 246.) Ubi [apud heereticos et 
schismaticos |, etsi occisus propter 
nomen postmodum fuerit, extra ec- 
clesiam constitutus, et ab unitate 
atque caritate divisus, coronari in 
morte non poterit— Ibid. p. 114. 
(p. 251.) Christi ecclesiam dissipan- 
tes, nec si occisi pro nomine foris 
fuerint, admitti secundum Aposto- 
lum possunt ad ecclesie pacem, 
quando nec Spiritus nec ecclesie 
tenuerunt unitatem.—Vid. Ep. 57. 
[al. 54.] ad Cornel. (p.270.).... Si 


aliquis ex talibus fuerit apprehensus, 
non est quod sibi quasi in confessio- 
nis nominis [leg. nomine] blandia- 
tur; cum constet, si occisi ejusmodi 
extra ecclesiam fuerint, fidei coro- 
nam non esse, sed pcenam potius 
esse perfidie, &c. 

85 Contr. Lit. Petilian. 1.2. ¢. 23. 
(t. 9. p. 233 c-) Si schisma fecisti, 
impius es: si impius es, ut sacrile- 
gus moreris, cum pro impietate pu- 
niris: si ut sacrilegus moreris, quo- 
modo tuo sanguine baptizaris ?—De 
Bapt. 1. 4. c. 17. (ibid. p. 135 g.)..- 
Neque hoc baptisma, inquit, heretico 
prodest, quamvis Christum confes- 
sus extra ecclesiam fuerit occisus : 
Caritatem non habuisse convincitur, 
de qua Apostolus dicit, Ht si tradi- 
dero corpus meum, &c.—Ep. 204. 
[4]. 173.] (p. 614 f.) Foris autem ab 
ecclesia constitutus, et separatus a 
compage unitatis et vinculo carita- 
tis, eterno supplicio punireris, eti- 
amsi pro Christi nomine vivus in- 
cendereris. Hoc est enim, quod ait 
Apostolus, Etsi tradidero, δ. 

86 Hom, 11.in Eph. (t. 11. p. 86 ς.) 
᾿Ανὴρ δέ τις ἅγιος εἶπέ τι δοκοῦν εἶναι 
τολμηρὸν, πλὴν ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἐφθέγξατο" 
τί δὴ τοῦτο ἔστιν; Οὐδὲ μαρτυρίου 
αἷμα ταύτην δύνασθαι ἐξαλείφειν τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν ἔφησεν. 

87 [See Tit. 3, 11. Εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέ- 
στραπται 6 τοιοῦτος [αἱρετικὸς ἄν- 
θρωπος], καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὧν αὐτοκα- 
rakpiros.— Vid. Estium in loc. (Pa- 


: 
$7; 8: heresy, &c. 291 


words it, and some of the Ancients*7 understand it,) by a volun- 
tary excommunication, or separation of themselves from the 
Church. Yet this did not hinder, but that notwithstanding 
any such separation of themselves, the Church ordinarily pro- 
nounced a more formal anathema, or excommunication against 
them. As the Council of Nice ends her Creed with an ana- 
thema against all those who opposed the doctrine there deli- 
vered; and the Council of Gangra closes every canon with 
anathema against the Eustathian heretics; and there are 
innumerable instances of this kind in the tomes of the Coun- 
ceils, which it would be next to impertinent here only to refer 
to, they are so well known to all that have ever looked into 
them. 

8. To proceed then, when they were once formally excom- Secondly, 
municated, so long as they continued impenitent, they were ee Ree os 
by some rules of discipline debarred from the very lowest i ΒΕΣῚ 
privileges of church-communion ; being forbidden to enter the mite by 
church so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read Some ἂς 
in the service of the catechumens. The Council of Laodicea though not 
has a canon 58 to this purpose, ‘ that heretics, so long as they byall. 
continue in their heresy, shall not be permitted to enter into 
the house of God.’ And it is probable this rule might be 
observed in the strict discipline of some Churches. But it was 
no general rule: for I have had occasion to show before 89, out 
of the African and Spanish Councils, and several passages of 
St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, that liberty was granted to here- 
tics, together with Jews and Heathens, to come into the 
church and hear the sermon preached and the Scriptures 
read, being these were proper for their instruction. They 
thought it not impossible but that heretics might be converted 
in the church, as Polemon, a debauched young man, was con- 
verted in the school of Xenocrates; when coming drunk and 
with his bacchanal wreaths about his head to hear the philo- 


ris. 1666. p. 854.) Tertius igitur tiens. Ep.] 


sensus est, hzreticum peccare, non 87 [Vid. Suicer. in voc. t. 1. 
quomodocunque, sed ita ut proprio p.582. Ep.] 
se judicio condemnet, dum preve- 88. C. 6. (t. τ. p. 1497 a.) Περὶ τοῦ, 


niens quodammodo judicium epi- μὴ συγχωρεῖν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς εἰσιέναι 
Scopi, quo condemnatus esset, et ἃ εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

fidelium societate separandus, ipse 89 B. 13. ch. 1. 8.2. v. 4. p. 262. 
semetipsum ab ea separat, palam et nn. I, 2, 3, et 8666. 

pertinaciter ab ejus doctrina dissen- 


U2 


292 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


sopher read his lecture, which happened to be about tem- 
perance and modesty®, he was so affected therewith, that 
he not only became his scholar and his convert, but his suc- 
cessor also in the school of Plato. The historians % tell us, 
that Chrysostom by this means brought over many to acknow- 
ledge the divinity of Christ, whilst they had liberty to come to 
hear his sermons. And the fathers of the Council of Valen- 
tia?! in Spain give this as the reason why they allowed 
Heathens and heretics to come and hear the bishop’s preach- 
ing and the reading of the Scriptures, ‘because they had found 
by experience that many by these means had been converted 
to the faith.’ So that the Church, which always studied men’s 
edification, and not their destruction, in prudence so ordered 
her discipline, as to encourage heretics to frequent one part of 
her service, which she allowed to her penitents and catechu- 


89 Vid. Valer. Max. I. 6. ¢. 9. 
(Antwerp. 1621. Extern. n. 1. p. 
261.) Perdite luxurie Athenis a- 
dolescens Polemo, neque illecebris 
ejus tantummodo, sed etiam ipsa 
infamia gaudens; cum e convyivio 
non post occasum solis, sed post 
ortum surrexisset, domumque re- 
diens Xenocratis philosophi paten- 
tem januam vidisset; vino gravis, 
unguentis delibutus, sertis capite re- 
dimito, pellucida veste amictus, re- 
fertam turba doctorum hominum 
scholam ejus intravit. Nec con- 
tentus tam deformi introitu, con- 
sedit etiam, ut clarissimum elo- 
quium, et prudentissima precepta, 
temulentiz lasciviis elevaret. Orta 
deinde, ut par erat, omnium in- 
dignatione, Xenocrates vultum in 
eodem habitu continuit, omissaque 
re quam disserebat, de modestia ac 
temperantia loqui ceepit. Cujus gra- 
vitate sermonis resipiscere coactus 
Polemo, primum coronam capite de- 
tractam projecit; paulo post bra- 
ehium intra pallium reduxit; pro- 
cedente tempore, oris convivalis hi- 
laritatem deposuit ; ad-ultimum to- 
tam luxuriam exuit, uniusque ora- 
tionis saluberrima medicina sanatus, 
ex infami ganeone maximus philo- 
sophus evasit. [See the story of Po- 


lemon in Diogenes Laertius, 1. 4. Vit. 

Polemon. 263. (p. 100 b. seqq.)—See 

also Horat. 1. 2. Sat. 3. ver. 253- 

(Corp. Poet. Lat. t. 1. p. 477-) 

.... Quero, faciasne quod olim 

Mutatus Polemon? ponas insignia 
morbi, 

Fasciolas, cubital, focalia? potus ut 
ille 

Dicitur ex collo furtim carpsisse 
coronas, 

Postquam est impransi correptus 
voce magistri. Ep.] 

90 Sozom. 1. 8. 6:2. (v. 2. p. 325- 
46.) Πλείστους δὲ τῶν αὐτοῦ ἀκουόν- 
των ἐπ᾽ ἐκκλησίας εἰς ἀρετὴν ὠφέ- 
λησε, καὶ ὁμόφρονας αὐτῷ περὶ τὸ 
θεῖον ἐποίησε. 

91 C. τς (t.4. p. 1617 d.) Inter 
cetera hoc censuimus observan- 
dum ; ut sacrosancta Evangelia ante 
munerum illationem, vel missam [al. 
in missa] catechumenorum, in or- 
dine lectionum, post Apostolum le- 
gantur; quatenus salutaria preecepta 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, vel ser- 
monem sacerdotis, non solum fideles, 
sed etiam catechumeni et peenitentes, 
et omnes, qui ex diverso sunt, au- 
dire, licitum habeant. Sic enim 
pontificum preedicatione audita, non- 
nullos ad fidem attractos evidenter 
scimus. 


δ 8, 9. heresy, Sc. 293 


mens. And if heretics were at any time denied it, there was 
some very particular and extraordinary reason for it. 

9. But there was not the same reason for allowing Catholics Thirdly, No 
to frequent the assemblies or conventicles of heretics and ec τ 
schismatics ; because this, instead of converting them, had eam 
rather been to have confirmed and hardened them in their by fre- 
errors: and therefore the prohibition in this case was more apie 
peremptory and universal, that no one should join with here- semblies. 
tics in any religious offices, and least of all in their conven- 
ticles, under pain of excommunication. To this purpose the 
Apostolical Canons 92: ‘If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon 
pray with heretics, let him be suspended : but if he suffer them 
to officiate as clergymen, let him be deposed.’ And again 93, 

‘If any clergyman or layman go into a synagogue of Jews or 
heretics to pray, let him be excommunicated or deposed’ In 
like manner the Council of Laodicea 94: ‘ None of the Church 
are permitted to go to the cemeteries or martyries of heretics 
for prayer or worship, under pain of excommunication for 
some time, till they repent and confess their error.’ And 
again 95, ‘ It is not lawful to pray with heretics or schismatics.’ 
‘ The assembly of heretics,’ says the Council of Carthage 96, 
‘is not a church, but a conyenticle: therefore 97 with heretics 
no one shall either pray or sing psalms.’ ‘If a Catholic,’ says 
the Council of Lerida 95, ‘ offer his children to be baptized by 
heretics, his oblation shall in no wise be received in the 


ehurch.’ 


92 C. 45. [4]. 44.] (Cotel. [c. 37.] 
V.1. p.444.) ᾿Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύ- 
τερος, ἢ διάκονος, αἱρετικοῖς συνευξά- 
μενος μόνον, ἀφοριζέσθω" εἰ δὲ καὶ 
ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς ὡς κληρικοῖς ἐνεργῆ- 
σαί τι, καθαιρείσθω. 

95 Tbid. c. 65. [4]. 63.] (Cotel. 
[c. 57-] ibid. p. 446.) Et ris κληρικὸς, 
ἢ λαϊκὸς, εἰσέλθη εἰς συναγωγὴν Ἴου- 
δαίων ἢ αἱρετικῶν προσ α]. συν-} 
εὐξασθαι, καθαιρείσθω καὶ ἀφορι- 
ζέσθω. 

94 Ὁ, 9. (t. 1. p. 1497 c.) Περὶ τοῦ 
μὴ συγχωρεῖν εἰς τὰ κοιμητήρια, ἢ εἰς 
τὰ λεγόμενα μαρτύρια πάντων τῶν 
αἱρετικῶν ἀπιέναι τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 
εὐχῆς ἢ θεραπείας ἕνεκα" ἀλλὰ τοὺς 
τοιούτους, ἐὰν ὦσι πιστοὶ, ἀκοινωνή- 
τους γίνεσθαι μέχρι τινός" μετανοοῦν- 


But then this was to be understood, where a man 


tas δὲ, καὶ ἐξομολογουμένους ἐσφάλ- 
θαι, παραδέχεσθαι. 

% ΤΡΙΑ, c. 33. (p. 1501 6.) Ὅτι οὐ 
δεῖ αἱρετικοῖς ἢ σχισματικοῖς συνεύ- 
χεσθαι. 

96 Carth. 4. c. 71. (t. 2. p. 1205 ἃ.) 
Hereticorum ccetus [ἃ]. conventi- 
cula] non ecclesia, sed conciliabu- 
lum est. 

97 Ibid. c. 72. (d.) Cum here- 
ticis nec orandum nec psallendum. 

98. Ὁ. 13. (t. 4. p. 1613 b.) Catho- 
licus, qui filios suos in heresi bap- 
tizandos obtulerit, oblatio illius in 
ecclesia nullatenus recipiatur.—Vid. 
Hieron. Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c. 5. 
[al. r2.] (t.2. p.184a.)....Sciens 
ab hereticis baptizatus, erroris ve- 
niam non meretur. 


294 The great crimes, 


might have baptism from a Catholic, and he chose rather to 
go to an heretic to receive it, without any necessity to compel 
him so to do. For otherwise, as has been observed before out 
of several places of St. Austin 99, in case of extreme necessity, 
a man was allowed to receive baptism from an heretic, rather 
than die without it. This was not esteemed any breach of 
Catholic unity, neither was it the case, which the discipline of 
the Church respected, when she forbad men to encourage 
heretics by a voluntary joing with them, and receiving 
baptism from them. Cyril of Jerusalem? in this sense bids 
his catechumen abhor especially the conventicles of impious 
heretics, and have no communication with them. Chrysostom? 
compares heretics to those that deface the king’s coin: though 
it be but in one point, they subvert the Gospel thereby, and 
therefore Catholics ought to make a separation from them. 
‘No one,’ he says, ‘ ought to maintain any friendship with 
heretics. Since they maintain different doctrines, men ought 
not to mingle or join in their assemblies with them.’ And he 
adds, ‘ that to divide the Church by schism, is no less a crime 
than to fall into heresy, because it exposes the Church to the 
ridicule of the Gentiles.’ There he also urges that famous 
saying of Cyprian‘, ‘ The blood of martyrdom cannot blot out 
this crime. For why art thou a martyr? is it not for the 
glory of Christ? if therefore thou layest down thy life for 
Christ, why dost thou lay waste his Church, for which Christ 
laid down his own life?’ Thus the Ancients dissuade men from 
encouraging heretics and schismatics by resorting to their 
assemblies. 


XVI. vi. 


% De Bapt. 1.1. c. 2. et 1.6.¢.5 
1.7. c.52. See these cited at large 
before, ch. 1. Β. 4. p. 16. nn. 33, 34, 


Ἐ: 
3 1 Catech. 4. n. 23. [al. 37.] (Dp. 
7° Dey sacar ᾿Εξαιρέτως δὲ μίσει πάντα 
τὰ συνεδρία τῶν παρανόμων αἱρετι- 
κῶν. 

2 In Gal. 1. p.972. (t.10. Ρ. 669¢.) 
Καθάπερ ἐ ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς νομίσμα- 
σιν 6 μικρὸν τοῦ χαρακτῆρος περικό- 
as, ὅλον τὸ νόμισμα κίβδηλον εἰργά- 
σατο" οὕτω καὶ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως 
καὶ τὸ βραχύτατον ἀνατρέψας, τῷ 
παντὶ λυμαίνεται, ἐπὶ τὰ χείρονα 
προϊὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς. 


3 Hom. rr. in Eph. P- 1108. (12. 
p. 86 f.) εὐ ον El μὲν γὰρ καὶ δόγ- 
ματα ἔχουσι ἐναντία, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο 
οὐ προσῆκεν ἐκείνοις ἀναμίγνυσθαι, 
Κι T. Ἃς 

4 Ibid. p. 1107. (d.) οὐδὲ pap- 
τυρίου αἷμα ταύτην δύνασθαι ἐξαλεί- 
ey τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἔφησεν. Εἰπὲ γάρ 
μοι, τίνος ἕνεκεν μαρτυρεῖς 5 οὐ διὰ 
τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 6 τοίνυν τὴν 
ψυχὴν προθέμενος ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
πῶς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν πορθεῖς, ὑπὲρ ἧς 
τὴν Ψυχὴν προήκατο 6 Χριστός ;—See 
before, 8. 7. nn. 84, 85, 86, pre- 
ceding. 


ea 


heresy, §c. 295 


10. There were many other marks of infamy and disgrace laa νον 
set upon heretics by the laws of the Church joining with the ee 
laws of the State, to give men a greater abhorrence of them. ὑὸς ἃ τινα 
No one was so much as to eat at a feast, or converse familiarly receive 
with them; no one might receive their eulogie, or festival bel ἐντ᾽ 


presents ; nor read or retain their writings, but discover and retain their 
burn them; no one might make marriages, or enter into any Vive nar 
affinity with them, except they would promise to return into ay se 
the Catholic Church. As long as they continued in heresy, ὲ 

their names were struck out of the diptychs of the Church: 

and if they died in heresy, no psalmody or other solemnity was 

used at their funeral; no oblations were offered for them, nor 

any memorial ever after made of them in the solemn service of 

the Church. But because I have spoken of these things fully in 

the general description of the Church’s treatment of excommu- 

nicate persons before*, it may be sufficient only to have hinted 

these several points in this place, because these punishments 

were not peculiar to heretics, but belonged to all in general 

that were under the censure of excommunication. 

11. Yet there are two things of this kind, which it may not Shes 
be improper to speak a little more particularly of here. 1. That ce. ΠῈΣ 
by the laws of the Church, as well as the State, heretics were to be evi- 

. . ence 1n 
rendered infamous, and their testimony was not to be taken as any ecclesi- 
evidence in any ecclesiastical cause whatsoever. ‘The testi- pana 
mony of an heretic shall not be taken against a bishop,’ say the against a 
Apostolical Canons®. ‘In all judgment,’ says the Council of Canoes 
Carthage’, ‘examination shall be made into the conversation 
and faith of both the accuser and defendant.’ In the African Code 
there are two canons to this purpose: the one’ forbidding all 
excommunicate persons, under which heretics are compre- 


hended, to be evidence against any man, during the time of 


δ 9, 10, 11. 


5 Ch. 2. s. 11, and onwards, pp. 
-102. 


΄- , , Ἀ 
ροις τῶν συνόδων ψηφίσμασι περὶ 
προσώπων κληρικῶν, τῶν μὴ ὀφειλόν- 


6 ©. 75. [al. 74.] (Cotel. [c. 67.] ν. 
I. p. 447.) Eis μαρτυρίαν τὴν κατὰ ἐ- 
πισκόπου αἱρετικὸν μὴ προσδέχεσθε. 

7 Carth. 4. ς. 96. (t.2. Ρ. 1207 6.) 
Querendum in judicio, cujus sit 
conversationis et fidei is qui accu- 
sat, et is qui accusatur. 

8 Ὁ. 129. [al. 128.] (ibid. p. 1134 


b »” = > \ - > , 
.) Ἤρεσε πᾶσιν, ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἀνωτέ- 


των εἰς κατηγορίαν προσδεχθῆναι, ὡ- 
ρίσθη, καὶ οὐκ ἐπεξειργάσθη, ποῖα 
πρόσωπα μὴ προσδεχθῶσι᾽ διὰ τοῦτο 
ὁρίζομεν, τοῦτον ὀρθῶς πρὸς κατηγο- 
ρίαν μὴ εἰσδέχεσθαι, ὅστις, μετὰ τὸ 
ἀπὸ κοινωνίας γενέσθαι, ἐν αὐτῷ ἔτι 
τῷ ἀφορισμῷ ὑπάρχει εἴτε κληρικὸς 
εἴη, εἴτε λαϊκὸς, ὁ κατηγορῆσαι βουλό- 
μενος. 


296 . The great crimes, 


their suspension. And the other? expressly naming heretics 
among many others whose testimony was not to be admitted in 
law: such as slaves and freedmen against their own masters ; 
all mimics, and actors, and such other infamous persons; all 
Jews and Heathens; and al! such, whose testimony was repro- 
bated by the laws of the State; except it were in some matter 
of their own private concerns, in which case every man was to 
have justice, and any one allowed to accuse another. The same 
equitable distinction is made by the general Council of Con- 
stantinople!°: a man might have a private cause of complaint 
against a bishop; as, that he was defrauded in his property, or 
im any the hke cases injured by him: in which ease his accusa- 
tion was to be heard, without considering at all the quality of 
the person or his religion. For a bishop was to keep a good 
conscience, and any man that complained of being injured by 
him was to have justice done him, whatever religion he was of. 
But if the crime was purely ecclesiastical that was alleged 
against him, then the personal qualities of the accusers were to 
be examined ; and in the first place heretics are not allowed to 
accuse orthodox bishops in causes ecclesiastical; neither any 
excommunicated persons, before they had first made satisfae- 
tion for their own crimes. 

Gothofred indeed questions, whether there be any law in the 
Theodosian Code which thus unqualifies heretics from giving 
evidence: for though there be a law of Valentinian!, twice 


XVI. vi. 


96. 130. [al. 129.] (ibid. c.) ‘O- 
polos ἤρεσεν, ἵνα πάντες of δοῦλοι, 
καὶ ot ἴδιοι ἀπελεύθεροι, εἰς κατηγο- 
ρίαν μὴ δεχθῶσι" καὶ πάντες, οὗς πρὸς 
κατηγορητέα ἐγκλήματα οἱ δημόσιοι 
νόμοι οὐ προσδέχονται" πάντες ἔτι 
μὴν, of τοῖς τῆς ἀτιμίας. σπίλοις ἐρ- 
ραντισμένοι, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι μῖμοι, καὶ ὅσα 
τοῖς αἰσχρότησιν ὑποβέβληνται. πρόσ- 
era’ aiperixol ἔτι μὴν, εἴτε Ἕλλη- 
ves, εἴτε Ιουδαῖοι" πλὴν ὅ ὅμως πᾶσιν, 
οἷς ἡ τοιαύτη κατηγορία ἀρνεῖται, ἐν 
ταῖς ἰδίαις αἰτίαις τὴν τοῦ κατηγορεῖν 
ἄδειαν μὴ ὀφείλειν ἀρνεῖσθαι. 

0 Ὁ. 6. (ibid. Pp. 950 a. ) Ei μέν τις 
οἰκείαν τινὰ μέμψιν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἰδὲ- 
ωὠτικὴν, ἐπαγάγοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς 
πλεονεκτηθεὶς, ἢ ἢ ἀλλό τι παρὰ τὸ δί- 
καιον παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ πεπονθώς" ἐπὶ τῶν 
τοιούτων κατηγοριῶν μὴ ἐξετάζεσθαι, 
μήτε πρόσωπον τοῦ κατηγόρου, μήτε 


τὴν θρησκείαν. Χρή γὰρ παντὶ τρόπῳ 
τό, τε συνειδὸς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἐλεύθε- 
ρον εἶναι, καὶ τὸν ἀδικεῖσθαι λέγοντα, 
οἵας ἂν ἡ θρησκείας, τῶν δικαίων ᾿τυγ- 
χάνειν. Ei δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν εἴη τὸ 
ἐπιφερόμενον ἔγκλημα, τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, 
τότε δοκιμάζεσθαι χρὴ τῶν “κατηγο- 
ρούντων. τὰ πρόσωπα" ἵνα πρῶτον μὲν 
αἱρετικοῖς μὴ ἐξῇ κατηγορίας κατὰ τῶν 
ὀρθοδόξων ἐπισκόπων ὑπὲρ ἐκκλησι- 
αστικῶν πραγμάτων ποιεῖσθαι. Ἔ- 
πειτα δὲ καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας ἐπὶ αἰτίαις τισὶ προκατεγνωσμέ- 
νοι εἶεν καὶ ἀποβεβλημένοι, ἢ ἀκοι- 
νώνητοι, εἴτε ἀπὸ κλήρου. εἴτε ἀπὸ 
λαϊκοῦ τάγματος" μηδὲ τούτους ἐξεῖ- 
ναι κατηγορεῖν ἐπισκόπου, πρὶν ἂν τὸ 
οἰκεῖον ἔγκλημα πρότερον ἀποδύσων- 
ται. 

11 Cod. Theod. 1. 11. tit.30. de 
Fide Testium, leg. 11. (t.4. p. 332.) 


———s— 


§ 11. 


297 


repeated in two distinct titles, declaring the proper qualifica- 
tions of witnesses, yet he thinks in both places it is to be under- 
stood of apostates only, and not of heretics. But it is certain, in 
Justinian’s Code!2, this same law is applied to heretics, render- 
ing them incapable of giving evidence. And Justinian made 
two laws of his own to confirm this sense of the ancient law. In 
one of which 18 he says, ‘ that whereas the judges were at some 
doubt, whether they should admit the testimony of heretics in 
determining causes, he thus resolved the matter for their in- 
struction : that where a Catholic was concerned in any dispute, 
neither heretic nor Jew should be allowed to give evidence, 
whether both parties were Catholics, or only one: but in such 
causes as Jews or heretics had between themselves, the testi- 
mony of either might indifferently be admitted, as fit witnesses 
for such disputers: yet with an exception to all those who were 
of the mad sect of the Manichees, of which the Borboritz were 
a part, and all who still followed the Pagan superstition: also 
all Samaritans, and Montanists, and Tascodrogitz, and Ophite, 
who differed not much from the Samaritans in the likeness of 
their guilt; all such are prohibited universally either to give 
testimony, or to prosecute any action at law.’ And he mentions 
and confirms this decree in one of his Novels! also. But whe- 
ther Justinian was the first that made this law in the State 
against heretics, as Gothofred would have it, or not, is not very 


heresy, Sc. 


Hi, qui sanctam fidem prodiderint, 
et sacrum baptisma profanarint, a 
consortio omnium segregati, sint a 
testimoniis alieni, &c.—Idem repeti- 
tur 1. τό. tit.7. de Apostatis, leg. 4. 
(t. 6. p. 207.) 

12 L. 1. tit. 7. de Apostatis, leg. 3. 
(t. 4. p. 194.) Hi, qui sanctam fidem 
prodiderunt, et sanctum baptisma 
heretica superstitione profanarunt, a 
consortio omnium segregati, a testi- 
moniis alieni sint. 

13 [Tbid. tit. 5. de Hereticis, leg. 
21. (ibid. p. 191.) Quoniam multi ju- 
dices in dirimendis litigiis nos inter- 
pellaverunt, nostro indigentes ora- 
culo, ut eis referretur, quid de testi- 
bus hereticis statuendum sit, utrum- 
ne accipiantur eorum testimonia, an 
respuantur: sancimus, contra ortho- 
doxos quidem litigantes, nemini he- 
retico, vel his etiam, qui Judaicam 


superstitionem colunt, esse in testi- 
monio communionem: sive utraque 
pars orthodoxa sit, sive altera. In- 
ter se autem hereticis vel Judzis 
ubi litigandum existimaverint, con- 
cedimus foedus permixtum, et dig- 
nos litigatoribus etiam testes intro- 
ducere: exceptis scilicet his, quos 
vel Manichaicus furor, cujus partem 
et Borboritas esse manifestum est, 
vel Pagana superstitio detinet: Sa- 
maritis nihilominus, et, qui illis non 
absimiles sunt, Montanistis, et Tas- 
codrogitis, et Ophitis; quibus pro 
reatus similitudine omnis legitimus 
actus interdictus est, &c. 
14 Novel. 45. c. 1. (t. 5. Ρ. 264.) 
.++Quia enim heereticos testimo- 
nium perhibere prohibuimus, quando 
orthodoxi inter alterutros litigant, 
ἄς. 


298 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


material: it is certain there was such a rule in the Church 
long before. For St. Austin!5 pleads it in behalf of one of his 
own presbyters, Secundinus of Germanicia, a place in his dio- 
cese: ‘ Against a Catholic presbyter we neither can nor ought 
to admit the accusations of heretics.’ And so he says again!® 
in the case of Czecilian, bishop of Carthage, whom the Donatists 
accused of many crimes, ‘ Neither piety, nor charity, nor truth, 
will allow the testimony of those men against him, whom we 
see to be out of the Church.’ And long before him, Athana- 
sius!7 pleaded the same in his own behalf: when he was ac- 
cused for suffering Macarius, one of his presbyters, to break 
the communion cup, he urged, that his accusers were Mele- 
tians, who ought not to be credited, being schismatics and ene- 
mies both to him and the Church. A great many such rules 
are collected by Gratian'’, out of the Epistles of the ancient 
Popes, which, though they be spurious, yet they are founded 
upon this known practice of the Church, that the testimony of 
an heretic was not to be received against a Catholic in an ec- 
clesiastical cause, which we have seen fully evinced in the pre- 
ceding allegations. 

Specs 12. The other thing here to be observed is, that by the laws 

not allowed Of the Church all men, or ecclesiastics at least, were obliged to 

- ἐπε discourage heresy, by denying obstinate defenders of it such 
temporal benefits and privileges as it was in their power to 


ternal in- 
heritance. deny them. Thus, for instance, the Council of Carthage’? for- 


15 Ep. 212. [al. 251.] ad Panca- 
rium. (t.2. p.880 c.) Nam hereti- 
corum accusationes contra Catholi- 
cum presbyterum admittere nec pos- 
sumus nec debemus. 

16 Ep. 1. [4]. 185. c.1.] ad Boni- 
fac. (ibid. p. 645 a.) Ipsa pietas, ve- 
ritas, caritas, non permittit contra 
Cecilianum eorum hominum ad- 
mittere testimonia, quos in ecclesia 
non videmus. 

17 Apolog. ad Constant. t. 1. p. 
731. (al. Apolog. 2. cont. Arian. ἢ. 
11. (t. I. part. I. p. 105 c.) Μελετια- 
νοὶ μὲν yap εἶσιν οἱ κατηγοροῦντες, 
καθόλου πιστεύεσθαι μὴ ὀφείλοντες" 
σχισματικοὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐχθροὶ τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας γεγόνασιν. 

18 Caus. 3. quest. 4. (t.1. ΡΡ. 726, 
seqq.) [E.G. c,2.(45.) Accusandi vel 


testificandi licencia denegetur his, 
qui Christiane religionis et nominis 
dignitatem, et suz legis, vel sui pro- 
positi normam aut regulariter prohi- 
bita neglexerint.—It. c. 6. (p. 727. 
74.) Nullus anathematizatorum sus- 
cipiatur, &c.—It. c. 11. (p. 728. 75.) 
Nulli unquam infami et sacrilego de 
quocunqgue negotio liceat adversus 
religiosum Christianum ... testimo- 
nium dicere, &c.—Conf. quest. 5. 
passim. Ep. ] 

19 Carth. 3. c. 13. (t.2. p.1169 d.) 
Ut episcopi vel clerici, in eos, qui 
Catholici Christiani non sunt, etiam- 
si consanguinei fuerint, nec per do- 
nationes, nec per testamentum, re- 
rum suarum aliquid conferant. — 
Vid. Cod. Afric. c. 22. (ibid. p. 


1059-) Μηδὲν διὰ δωρεᾶς τῶν οἰκείων 


§ 12, 13, 14. 299 


bids the bishops and clergy to confer any donations upon he- 
retics, though they be of their kindred, either by gift or will. 
And the civil law gave force to this decree, by rendering all 
heretics intestate ; that is, incapable either of disposing of their 
own estates, or of receiving any benefit from the wills of others, 
as we have seen before, sect. 6, in speaking of the civil sanc- 
tions made against them. 

13. Another law of this kind was that which forbad the or- Seventhly, 

ye : - - No heretic 
dination of such as were either baptized in heresy, or fell away to have 
after they had been baptized in Catholic unity in the Church. eae 
They were allowed to be received as penitent laymen, but not clergy after 
to be promoted to any ecclesiastical dignity in any order of ee 
the clerical function. But this was a piece of discipline that Church. 
might be insisted on, or dispensed with and waived, according 
as church-governors in prudence thought most for the benefit 
and advantage of the Church. And therefore though the 
Council of Eliberis?° and some others insist upon this rule, yet 
the Council of Nice dispensed with it in the case of the Nova- 
tians, and the African Fathers in the case of the Donatists, 
to encourage those schismatics to return to the unity of the 
Church. But I only just mention this here, because I have 
more fully stated it on both sides, upon other occasions in the 
preceding parts of this work2!, to which the reader may have 
recourse. 

14, And there I have also noted another rule, which relates Eighthly, 
to the matter now in hand; which was, that no one should be phrase 4 
ordained bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who had not first made who kept 
all the members of his family Catholic Christians. This is a family τεῦ 
rule we find in the third Council of Carthage2?, where St. Aus- were not of 


the Catholic 
faith. 


heresy, Se. 


πραγμάτων, ws εἴρηται, τοὺς ἐπισκό- 
πους ἢ κληρικοὺς τούτοις συνεισάγειν. 
[Conf. etiam C. vulgo dictum A- 
fricanum, c. 48. (juxt. Ed. Crabb. t. 
I. p. 509.) Item constitutum est, ut 
Si quis episcopus hzeredes extraneos 
a consanguinitate suz, vel hzreticos 
etiam consanguineos, aut Paganos, 
ecclesie pretulerit, saltem post 
mortem anathema ei dicatur, atque 
ejus nomen inter Dei sacerdotes 
nullo modo recitetur.—Vid. Cod. 
Afric. c. 81. (t. 2. p.1098 b.) ‘Quoiws 
ὡρίσθη iva ἐάν tis ἐπισκόπος κληρο- 
νόμους συγγενεῖς, κι τ. A. Ep.] 


20 C. στ. (t.1. p. 976 b.) Ex omni 
heeresi fidelis si venerit, minime est 
ad clerum promovendus: vel si qui 
sunt in preteritum ordinati, sine 
dubio deponuntur. 

a) B. 4. ch.’ 9. 8:52. Vala. pe Boy, 
and the Scholastical History of Lay- 
Baptism, part 2. ch. 4., [in the ninth 
volume of this edition. } 

22 C. 18. (t. 2. p. 1170 b.) Ut 
episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi non 
ordinentur, priusquam omnes, qui 
sunt in domo eorum Christianos 
Catholicos fecerint. 


300 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


tin was present: and there is no question but that it was chiefly 
designed against the Donatists, though it equally affects all 
heretics, and Jews and Pagans, and all who secretly by con- 
nivance gave any encouragement to them: it being thought 
absurd to promote those to the government of the Church, 
who had not zeal or interest enough to secure the practice of 
true religion within the walls of their own families. And the 
rule tending directly to discourage heresy, I therefore mention 
it here as a branch of the ancient discipline worthy our ob- 
servation. 

Nooneto 15. Neither can I pass over another rule of the fourth Coun- 

bring his cil of Carthage23, which forbids Catholics to bring any cause, 


cause before : ; Ε ᾿ 4 
an heretical whether just or unjust, before an heretical judge, under pain 


aaa of excommunication. This does not indeed deprive heretical 
communi- judges of their office, to render their decisions null, when the 
cation. : . : - 
State thinks fit to allow them, as it sometimes did under Con- 
stantius and Valens, and other heretical emperors. For the 
Church has no power in this case, which belongs to the civil, 
and not the ecclesiastical power, as has been shown before‘. 
But the Church had power to lay an injunction upon all her 
members, not to bring their causes before an heretical judge, 
by a just analogy to that rule of the Apostle, “not to go to law 
before the unbelievers.” [1 Cor. 6, 1and6.] And this was one 
way to discountenance heresy in men of the highest station: 
and for this reason we may suppose the Church enjoined it, 
to give a check to heretics, by obliging Catholics to end their 
controversies among themselves, and have no communication 
with heretics or unbelievers. 
What term 16. We have hitherto considered the punishments laid upon 
eat heretics continuing in their obstinacy and perverseness, and 
upon re- bidding defiance to the communion of the Church. We are 
ead he- now to view the Church’s discipline and behaviour toward 
them, when they showed any disposition to relent and return 
to the unity of the faith. Now heresy being reckoned among 
the greatest of crimes, a proportionable term of penance was 
laid upon it. The Council of Eliberis?® appoints ten years’ 


23 Ὁ, 87. (ibid. p. 1206 e.) Catho-  cetur. 
licus, qui causam suam, sive justam 24 Ch. 2.8.5. p. 8t. 
Sive injustam, ad judicium alterius 25 C. 22. (t. 1. p. 973 b.) Si quis 
fidei judicis provocat, excommuni- de Catholica ecclesia ad heresim 


§ 15, 16. 


heresy, δ᾽. 301 


penance for such as went over from the Catholic Church to 
any heresy, if ever they returned and made confession of their 
crime, before they should be admitted to communion. Only an 
exception is made in the case of infants, because their fault was 
not their own, but their parents’: therefore they are ordered 
to be received without any delay. The Council of Rome?®, 
under Felix, sets a more particular mark upon bishops, pres- 
byters, and deacons, who suffered themselves to be rebaptized 
by heretics, because this was in effect to deny their Christianity, 
and own that they were Pagans. Such are denied communion, 
even among the catechumens, all their lives, and only allowed 
lay-communion at the hour of death. Others are enjoined the 
same penance?’ as the Council of Nice puts upon lapsers, that 
is, twelve years, in the several stations of penitents, unless they 
had the plea of necessity or fear, or danger to excuse them. 
But if they were children’, their ignorance and immaturity 
was a more reasonable plea to shorten their penance, and 
restore them more speedily to communion. The Council of 
Agde?9 contracted this term of penance universally for all such 
lapsers into heresy, reducing it to the terms of three years 
only. For though the ancient canons imposed a longer penance, 
yet they saw good reason to relax this severity, and make 
the conditions of reconciliation a little easier. The Council of 
Epone*° repeats and confirms this decree, with a little various 


transitum fecerit, rursusque [ad ec- 
clesiam] recurrerit ....decem annis 
agat poenitentiam, cui post decem 
annos prestari communio debet. 
Si vero infantes fuerint transducti, 
quia non suo vitio peccaverint, in- 
cunctanter recipi debent. 

26 An. 487. c. 2. [ap. Felic. Pap. 
Ep. 7.] (CC. t. 4. p. 1076 c.)... Ad 


28 C. 4. (ibid. d.) Pueris autem, 
QUIDOR saa ignorantia suffragatur 
etatis, aliquandiu sub manus impo- 
sitione detentis, reddenda commu- 
nio est: nec eorum expectanda pee- 
nitentia, quos excipit a coercitione 
censura. 

29 C. 60. (ibid. p. 1392 e.) Lapsis, 
id est, qui in Catholica fide baptizati 


exitus sui diem in peenitentia, si re- 
sipiscunt jacere conveniet : nec ora- 
tioni non modo fidelium, sed ne 
[4]. nee] catechumenorum omni- 
modis interesse, quibus communio 
laica tantum in morte reddenda est. 
27 Ὁ. 3. (ibid. c.) De clericis au- 
tem et monachis aut puellis Dei 
aut secularibus servari precipimus 
hunc terrorem, quem Nicena Syn- 
odus circa eos, qui lapsi sunt vel 
a servandum esse constituit, 
6. 


sunt, si prevaricatione damnabili 
post in heresim transierint, gran- 
dem redeundi difficultatem sanxit 
antiquitas. Quibus nos, annorum 
multitudine breviata, pcenitentiam 
biennii. . imponimus; ut, preescripto 
biennio, tertio sine relaxatione jeju- 
nent, et ecclesiam studeant frequen- 
tare, &c. 

30 C. 29. (ibid. p.1579 d.)..... 
Prescripto biennio, tertia die sine 
dilatione jejunent, &c. 


302 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


reading of one clause, which reduces the term of penance to 
two years only. 
How this 17. It appears from some of the forementioned canons that 
are a great difference was made in the term of penance imposed 
oe Oe a upon heretics, with respect to the age of the offenders. Chil- 
condition dren were more favourably dealt with, by reason of their igno- 
ge rance and want of mature judgment, than adult persons. And 
heretics. | we may observe the same difference made in many other cases 
of the like nature. They, who were baptized and educated in 
the Catholic faith, were more severely treated, if after that 
they deserted the Church, and fell into heresy, and especially 
such heresies as required them to take a new baptism. The 
foresaid canons chiefly respect deserters, and particularly that 
one of Felix in the Roman Council, [cited in the preceding 
section,] such as were rebaptized in heresy: concerning which 
both the civil and ecclesiastical laws speak with great indigna- 
tion and severity ; the one confiscating the goods of all rebap- 
tizers, and banishing their persons; and the other requiring 
the rebaptized to go through a long course of penance in order 
to their readmission to the communion of the Church again; 
of which the reader may find a more ample account in a former 
Book#!, under the proper title of rebaptization. Whereas they 
that were born and bred and baptized originally among heretics 
had more favourable allowances made them, with respect to 
their difficult circumstances, and great prejudices naturally 
arising thence. ‘This is expressly said by St. Austin, in one of 
his Epistles®? to a Donatist bishop : ‘The Church has one way 
of treating those who desert her, if ever they repent; and an- 
other way of treating those who were never before in her 
bosom, till they come to beg her peace: she humbles the for- 
mer by a severer discipline, but receives the latter more gently, 
loving both, and ministering to the cure of both with the cha- 
rity and affection of a mother.’ So again, in his Book of One 
Baptism, against Petilian®*: ‘We observe this distinction, to 


31 B. 12. ch. 5. 8.7. Vv. 4. p. 258. mum ejus pacem accipiunt; illos 
32 Ep. 48. [al. 93. c. 13.] ad Vin- amplius humilitando, istos lenius 
centium. p. 73. (t. 2. p. 253 a.)... suscipiendo, utrosque diligendo, u- 
Aliter tractat illos, qui eam [scil. trisque sanandis materna caritate 
ecclesiam]| deserunt, si hoc ipsum serviendo. 
peenitendo corrigant ; aliter illos, qui 33 De Unic. Bapt. c. 12. (t. 9. p. 
in ea nondum fuerunt, et tune pri- 537 Ὁ, c.) Nec illud sine distinctione 


§ 17, 18. 303 


humble those who were once in the Catholic Church, and af- 
terward desert it, with a severer penance than those who were 
never in it. Neither do we admit them into the clergy, whether 
they were rebaptized by them, or run over to them, or were 
clergymen or laymen among them.’ 

This distinction was particularly observed by the African 
Synod with relation to such persons as were baptized in their 
infancy among the Donatists. In the Council of Carthage, 
anno 397, which is inserted into the African Code*, a pro- 
posal was made that such as had been baptized among the Do- 
natists in their infancy by their parents’ fault, without their own 
knowledge and consent, should upon their return to the Church 
be allowed the privilege of ordination: and in the next Coun- 
cil the proposal was accepted 55, and a decree passed accordingly 
in favour of them. The Council of Nice®® granted the same 
indulgence to the Novatian clergy; but we rarely find any of 
those who deserted the Church in which they had been bap- 
tized allowed this privilege ; the laws being more peremptory 
against them to debar them from all clerical dignity, and only 
receive them as private Christians to lay-communion. 

18. Yet considerations of prudence sometimes obliged the Heresi- 
Church to dispense with those laws also, and receive even archs more 


z Ε ane Ἢ x severely 
deserters in some cases to clerical dignity again; of which I treated 


heresy, Se. 


preterimus, ut humiliorem agant 
penitentiam qui jam fideles eccle- 
siam Catholicam deseruerunt, quam 
qui in illa nondum fuerunt. Nec ad 
clericatum admittuntur, sive ab he- 
reticis rebaptizati sint, sive prius 
suscepti ad 1105 redierint, sive apud 
illos clerici vel laici fuerint. 

34 C. 48. [al. 47.] (t. 2. p. 1071 b.) 
"Hpecev, iva ἐρωτήσωμεν τοὺς ἀδελ- 
φοὺς καὶ συνιερεῖς ἡμῶν Σιρίκιον καὶ 
Σιμπλικιανὸν περὶ μόνων τῶν νηπίων, 
τῶν παρὰ τοῖς Δονατισταῖς βαπτιζο- 
μένων, μήπως τοῦτο, ὅπερ οἰκείᾳ προ- 
θέσει οὐκ ἐποίησαν, τῇ τῶν γονέων 
πλάνῃ ἐμποδίσῃ αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸ μὴ 
προκόπτειν εἰς ὑπουργίαν τοῦ ἁγίου 
θυσιαστηρίου, ὅταν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἐκκλησίαν προθέσει ἐπιστρέψωσι. 

35 Vid. Cod. Afric. c. 58. [al. 57. 
(ibid. p. 1083 b.) ᾿Επειδὴ ἐν τῇ ἀνω- 
τέρᾳ συνόδῳ ὁρισθὲν μέμνηται ἅμα 
ἐμοὶ ἡ ὑμετέρα ὁμοψυχία, ὥστε τοὺς 


παρὰ τοῖς Δονατισταῖς μικροὺς βαπ- 
τιζομένους, μηδέπω δυναμένους γινώ- 
σκειν τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν τὸν ὄλεθρον, 
μετὰ τὸ εἰς κεῖραν λογισμοῦ δεκτικὴν 
παραγενέσθαι, ἐπιγνωσθείσης τῆς ἀλη- 

, A , > , 
θείας, τὴν φαυλότητα ἐκείνων βδελυτ- 
τομένους πρὸς τὴν Καθολικὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν ἀνὰ πάντα τὸν κόσμον 
διακεχυμένην, τάξει ἀρχαίᾳ διὰ τῆς 
ἐπιθέσεως τῆς χειρὸς ἀναδεχθῆναι, 
τοὺς τοιούτους ἐκ τοῦ τῆς πλάνης ὀνό- 

A > , > , > 
ματος μὴ ὀφείλειν ἐμποδίζεσθαι eis 

, , © / 4 > 
τάξιν κληρώσεως, ὁπόταν τὴν ἀληθι- 
νὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἰδίαν ἑαυτῶν ἐλογίσαντο. 
τῇ πίστει προσερχόμενοι, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ 
τῷ Χριστῷ πιστεύσαντες τῆς Τριάδος 
τὰ ἁγιάσματα ὑπεδέξαντο. 

86. C.8. (ibid. p. 32 e.) Περὶ τῶν 
> / ‘ ε΄ ‘ ’ 
ὀνομαζόντων μὲν ἑαυτοὺς Καθαρούς 
ποτε, προσερχομένων δὲ τῇ Καθολικῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ 
συνόδῳ, ὥστε χειροθετουμένους μένειν 
οὕτως ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ. 


than their 
followers. 


And volun- 
tary desert- 
ers more 
severely 
than they 
who com- 
plied only 
out of fear. 


A difference 
made be- 
tween such 


304 The great crimes, 


have given some instances? in a former Book. But then she 
always set a mark of infamy upon heresiarchs, or first founders 
of heresy, making a distinction between them and those that 
followed them: allowing the one sometimes to continue in the 
clerical function upon their repentance, but commonly degrad- 
ing the other without hopes of restitution. St. Austin takes 
notice of this difference in the case of the Donatists. He 
says38, ‘The Church of Afric observed this moderation from 
the beginning toward them, according to the decree made by 
those in the Roman Church, who were appointed to judge and 
decide the dispute between Ceecilian and the party of Donatus: 
they condemned only Donatus, who was proved to be the 
author of the schism; but ordered the rest to be received in 
their clerical honours upon their repentance, although they 
were ordained out of the Catholic Church.’ 

19. Another distinction was made, as in the case of lapsers 
into idolatry, between such heretics as voluntarily deserted the 
Church eut of choice and those who complied with heretical 
errors only by force and compulsion, being terrified into them 
by the violence of some persecution. In this latter case bishops 
were allowed to moderate their penance, as the circumstances 
of the matter seemed to require. As appears from the direc- 
tion given by Pope Leo?9 to the bishop of Aquileia, concerning 
the penance of such as were compelled by fear and violence 
offered to them by certain heretics to submit to a second 
baptism: they were to be put under penance, he says, for 
some time, but a moderation was to be used in the term of it 
according to the bishop’s discretion. 

20. Another difference was made between such heretics as 
retained the due form of baptism and those who wholly rejected 


XVI. vi. 


87, ΒΓ ΘΗ 7. ΕΒ. 5; ΝΥ ΣΙ. ΡΡ. 
ο8-τοο. 

38 Ep.50. Ρ. 87. [al. 185. c. 10.] 
ad Bonifac. (t. 2. p. 661 g.) Hoc 
erga istos ab initio servavit Africa 
Catholica, ex episcoporum sententia, 
qui in ecclesia Romana inter Cecili- 
anum et partem Donati judicaverunt, 
damnatoque uno quodam Donato, 
qui auctor schismatis fuisse mani- 
festatus est, ceeteros correctos, etiam- 
si extra ecclesiam ordinati essent, in 
suis honoribus suscipiendos esse 


censuerunt. 

39 Ep. 77. ad Nicetam, c. 6. (CC. 
t. 3. p.1372 4.) Qui ad iterandum 
baptismum vel metu coacti sunt, vel 
terrore [al. errore] traducti, his ea 
custodienda est moderatio, qua in 
societatem nostram non nisi per poe- 
nitentiz remedium et per impositio- 
nem episcopalis manus communionis 
recipiant unitatem, temporis pceni- 
tudinis habita moderatione, tuo con- 
stituenda judicio, ἧτο. 


am 


§ 19, 20, 21. heresy, δ᾽ 6. 205 


it or corrupted it in any essential part. The former were to heretics as 
be received only by imposition of hands, confessing their error, — ca 
as having received a true baptism though out of the Church yee 
before; but the others were to be received only as Heathens, ed ae 
haying never been truly baptized, and therefore were obliged ae 
to receive anew baptism to make them members of the Church. * 

Of which, because I have given a full account elsewhere*®, I 

need say no more in this place. 

21. Finally, they made some distinction between such here- No one to 
tics as contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church gid sae 
and such as never had any admonition given them, or amended μού πεν 
quietly upon the first admonition. Men might entertain very tumacious- 
dangerous errors, but till the Church had given them a first apie 
and second admonition, according to the Apostle’s rule, they nition of 

were not reputed formal heretics, nor treated as such, till they "°@2™™™ 
joined contumacy to their error. St. Austin?! puts the case 
thus between two men, who are equally involved in the error 
of Photinianism, denying the divinity of Christ; but the one is 
baptized in heresy out of the communion of the Catholic 
Church; the other is baptized in the Catholic Church, having 
the same error, which he believes to be the Catholic faith: ‘ I 
do not yet call this man an heretic, unless when the doctrine 
of the Catholic faith is declared to him he chooses rather to 
resist it and hold to his former opinion: before he does this, he 
that is baptized out of the Church is plainly the worse of the 
two. But that man is worse than both the former, who, know- 
ing this opinion which he holds only to be taught among 
heretics divided from the Church, yet for some secular end 


40 B. 11. ch. 2 and 3. v. 4. pp. τό, 
17., and Scholastic History of Lay- 
Baptism, part 1. ch. 1. 5. 20, &c. [in 
the ninth volume of this edition. | 

41 De Bapt. 1. 4. c. τό. (t. 9. 
p- 135 6.) Constituamus ergo duos 
aliquos isto modo, unum eorum, 
verbi gratia, id sentire de Christo, 
quod Photinus opinatus est, et in 
ejus heresi baptizari extra ecclesize 
Catholice communionem: alium 
vero hoc idem sentire, sed in Ca- 
tholica baptizari, existimantem istam 
tal. ipsam] esse Catholicam fidem. 

stum nondum hereticum dico, nisi 
manifestata sibi doctrina Catholice 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


fidei resistere maluerit, et illud, quod 
tenebat, elegerit; quod ante quam 


fiat, manifestum est illum, qui foris , 


baptizatus est, esse pejorem. .. Quod 
si quisquam idem sentiat quod illi, 
et esse noverit hzresin, ab unitate 
Catholica separatam, ubi hoe doce- 
tur et discitur, sed alicujus secularis 
emolumenti causa in Catholica uni- 
tate baptizari voluerit, vel in ea bap- 
tizatus propter hoc exire inde nolu- 
erit: non solum separatus habendus 
est, verum etiam tanto sceleratius, 
(leg.? sceleratior,] quanto magis er- 
rori heresis et divisioni unitatis fal- 
laciam simulationis adjungit, 


x 


306 The great crimes, 


and advantage chooses to be baptized in the Church and con- 
tinue in it after baptism: this man is not only to be accounted 
a separatist, but so much the more wicked one for adding 
heresy to his error, and dissimulation and hypocrisy to the 
division of the faith.’ In another place*# he says, ‘they are 
properly heretics, who, when they are reproved for their un- 
sound opinions, contumaciously resist ; and instead of correcting 
their pernicious and damnable doctrines, persist in the defence 
of them, and leave the Church and become her enemies. But 
they who defend not their opinion, though false and per- 
verse*?, with any pertinacious animosity, especially if they 
were not the first broachers of it, but received it from the 
seduction of their parents, and were careful in their inquiries 
after truth, being ready to embrace it when they found it; 
they were not to be reckoned among heretics.’ And with 
much stronger reason we have heard him say before*4, ‘ that a 
man who in extreme necessity received baptism from heretics, 
when he could not have a Catholic to administer it to him, was 
in no fault, because his mind and will was still united to the 
Catholic Church.’ From all which it is easy to discern how 
great a difference they made in the degrees of heresy and its 
guilt, and how the discipline of the Church was managed in a 
great measure according to these distinctions. 
The like 22. 1 have already shown*® that a like discrimination was 
po erga made between schismatics of different kinds, and that the cen- 
ee sures of the Church were inflicted on them only in proportion 
sures of the to the quality of their offence, observing the different nature 
een and various degrees of their separation or schism. Some only 
matics, ac- absented from church for a short time, suppose two or three 
corauig to Lord’s-days successively, without any justifiable reason for it: 
nature and and it was thought sufficient to correct such by a moderate 


ious de- : d : 
grees of * punishment of as many weeks’ suspension. Others attended 
vane some part of the service, suppose the sermon, and the psal- 


42 De Civitat. Dei, lib. 18. c. 51. 
(t. 7. Ρ. 533 6.) Qui ergo in ecclesia 
Christi morbidum aliquid pravum- 
que sapiunt, si correpti ut sanum 
rectumque sapiant, resistunt con- 
tumaciter; suaque pestifera et mor- 
tifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed 
defensare persistunt; heretici fiunt 


et, foras exeuntes, habentur in exer- 
centibus inimicis. 

43 Ep. 162. [al. 43. c. 1.] See 
before, ch. 1. s. 16. p. 58. n. 20. 

44 De Bapt. 1. 1. c. 2.—1. 6. ¢. 5.— 
1. ἡ. c.52. See before, ch. 1. 8. 4. 


ΡΡ. 16, 17. πη. 33, 84: 35- 
45 Ch. 1. s. 5. pp. 18-26. 


XVI. vi. 


| 


§ 22, 23. sacrilege, δ. 307 


mody, and the first prayers for the catechumens; but then 
withdrew, as if they had been penitents, when the service of 
the faithful or the communion office came on, and the eucharist 
was to be offered and received by all that were not for some 
fault excluded from it: and these, as greater criminals, were 
denied the privilege of making any oblations, and excluded for 
some time from all other holy offices of the Church. A third 
sort of separatists, which are most properly called schismatics, 
were such as withdrew totally and universally from the com- 
munion of the Church; pretending that her communion was 
polluted and profane by the mixture of sinners; or finding out 
other such reasons to charge her with sinful terms of commu- 

_nion, and justify their own separation by many the like pre- 
tences, of which the history of the Novatians and Donatists 
affords many instances. Now, against these the Church com- 
monly proceeded more severely, using the highest censure of 
excommunication or anathema, as against more professed and 
formal schismatics, and destroyers of that inviolable unity and 
peace, which ought to be most sacredly preserved in the body 
of Christ. 

Of all which schismatics and their punishments, because 1 
have spoken particularly before in discoursing of the unity of 
the Church?#°, I need say no more in this place, but proceed to 
another crime, that of sacrilege, which comes next in order to 
be considered. 

23. The Roman casuists*° are wont to call many things sa- Of sacri- 
erilege, which the Ancients reckoned no crimes at all: as the lege, ig 
laying taxes or tribute upon ecclesiastics by the civil power, diverting 
without the consent of the Pope, for which secular princes are sano 


ropriated 
excommunicated by the famous Bull Jn Cena Domini, as they to sacred 
eall it: and the bringing ecclesiastical persons for any crime a oes 
before the secular tribunals. Some other things they brand P°s*: 
with the odious name of sacrilege, which many of the Ancients 
reckoned to be virtues, and instances of zeal and piety towards 

God: as the removing of images out of all places of divine 


worship; for which the Council of Eliberis, and Epiphanius, 


45 [See before, ch. 1, particularly distinguendz.—Dubitat. 4. (p. 594.) 
ss. 6 and 7, pp. 26-37. Ep.] Quando sacrilegium censendum sit 
46 Vide Lessium, De Jure et Jus- esse peccatum mortiferum, quando 
titia, 1, 2. c. 45. dubitat. 3. (Ρ. 592.) veniale. 
Quomodo species sacrilegii sint 


x 


308 The great crimes, XVI. va 


and many others, were so remarkable in ancient history, who 
yet, if we were to speak in the style and language of these 
modern casuists, were to be reckoned guilty of the horrid sin 
of sacrilege. Since therefore the matter stood thus, we are not 
to expect to find any punishments in the penitential discipline 
of the ancient Church allotted to such mere pretended crimes 
and imaginary vices. 

But against real sacrilege, none could be more zealous than 
the Ancients. Particularly against diverting any thing to pri- 
vate use, which was given to the public service of the Church. 
‘Tf any one,’ say the Apostolical Canons‘’, ‘ either of the clergy 
or laity, take wax or oil out of the church, let him be cast out 
of communion, and make restitution with the addition of a fifth 
part.’ And again 48, ‘ Let no one divert to his own use any of 
the sacred utensils of gold, or silver, or linen; for it is a flagi- 
tious thing: and if any one be apprehended so doing, let him 
be excommunicated.’ So likewise in the fourth Council of Car- 
thage+9: ‘ Let those, who deny the Church such oblations as 
are given by the dead, or give them not without difficulty, be 
excommunicated as murderers of the poor.’ And the second 
Council of Vaison "Ὁ: ‘ They who detain the oblations and refuse 
to give them to the Church, are to be cast out of the Church 
as infidels; for such a provocation of God is a denying of the 
faith: both the faithful, who are gone out of the body, are 
defrauded of the plenitude of their vows, and the poor also of 
the comfort of their food and necessary subsistence. Such are 
to be esteemed murderers of the poor, and infidels with respect 


47 C, 72. [al. 71.] (Cotel. [c. 64.] 50 C. 4. (t. 3. Ρ. 1457.) Qui ob- 


v.1I. p. 446.) Ev τις κληρικὸς, ἢ Aai- 
KOs, ἀπὸ "τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἀφέλη- 
ται κηρὸν ἢ ἔλαιον, ἀφοριζέσθω, καὶ 
τὸ ἐπίπεμπτον προστιθέτω, μεθ᾽ οὗ 
serene 
C. 73. (al. 72.] (Cotel. be; 65-] 

ibid.) Σκεῦος ἀργυροῦ, ἢ χρυσοῦ, ἢ 
ὀθόνης, ἁγιασθὲν, μηδεὶς ἔτι εἰς οἷ- 
κείαν χρῆσιν σφετεριζέσθω" παράνο- 
μον yap’ εἰ δέ τις φωραθείη. ἐπιτι- 
μάσθω ἀλείτω 

49 0. (t. 2. p. 1207 ὃ.) Qui 
πα παν Pees aut negant 
ecclesiis, aut cum difficultate red- 
dunt, tanquam egentium necatores, 
excommunicentur,. 


lationes defun ciated [fidelium] re- 
tinent, et ecclesiis tradere demoran- 
tur, ut infideles sunt ab ecclesia ab- 
jiciendi: quia usque ad inanitionem 
fidei pervenire certum est hane pie- 
tatis divine exacerbationem: quia 
et fideles de corpore recedentes frau- 


. dantur votorum suorum plenitudine, 


et pauperes consolatu [al. collatu] 
alimoniz, et necessaria sustentatione 
fraudantur. Hi enim tales quasi 
egentium necatores, nec credentes 
judicium Dei, habendi sunt. Unde 
et quidam Patrum. . ait, Amico quip- 
piam rapere, furtum est ; ecclesiam 
vero fraudare, sacrilegium. 


§ 23. sacrilege, Se. 309 


to the judgment of God: whence one of the Fathers says, 
To take from a friend, is theft; but to defraud the Church, is 
sacrilege.’ This is cited from St. Jerom*!: and St. Ambrose >» 
goes a little further, and says, ‘ they who give their own estates 
to the Church, and then in a fickle humour retract and revoke 
them again, like Ananias and Sapphira, lose the reward both 
of their first and second action: the first act is void of judg- 
ment, and the second is downright sacrilege.’ Therefore whe- 
ther a man retracted what he himself had given to the Church, 
or detained what was given by others, or robbed her of what 
she was actually possessed of, it was all the same species of 
sacrilege, and the Canons*? equally punish them all with the 


51 [Ep. 2. [4]. 52.] ad Nepotian. 
(t. 1. p. 267 b. n. 16.) Amico quip- 
piam rapere, furtum est: ecclesiam 
fraudare, sacrilegium est. Ep. | 

52 De Peenitent. 1. 2. c.g. (t. 2. 
p- 434 d. n. 85.) Sunt, qui opes suas 
tumultuario mentis impulsu, non 
judicio perpetuo, ubi ecclesize con- 
tulerunt, postea revocandas putave- 
runt. Quibus nec prima merces rata 
est, nec secunda: quia nec prima 
judicium habuit et secunda habuit 
sacrilegium. 

53 C. Agathens. c. 4. (t. 4. p. 
1383 c.) Clerici etiam vel seculares, 
qui oblationes parentum, aut dona- 
tas, aut testamentis relictas, retinere 
perstiterint, aut id, quod ipsi dona- 
verint ecclesiis vel monasteriis, cre- 
diderint auferendum, sicut synodus 
sancta constituit, velut necatores 
pauperum, quousque reddant, ab ec- 
clesiis excludantur.—C. 5. (ibid. ἃ.) 
Si quis clericus furtum ecclesie fe- 
cerit, peregrina ei communio tribu- 
atur.—C. 6. (ibid. d.) Pontifices ve- 
ro, quibus, in summo sacerdotio 
constitutis, ab extraneis duntaxat, 
aliquid, aut cum ecclesia aut se- 
questratim, aut dimittitur aut dona- 
tur, quia hoc ille, qui donat pro 
redemptione anim suze, non pro 
commodo sacerdotis probatur of- 
ferre; non quasi suum proprium, 
sed quasi dimissum ecclesiz, inter 
facultates ecclesie computabunt : 
quia justum est, ut sicut sacerdos 


habet, quod ecclesiz dimissum est, 
ita et ecclesia habeat, quod relinqui- 
tur sacerdoti.—C. Arelatens. 2. c. 28. 
{juxt. Ed. Crabb. (t. 1. p. 294.) Se- 
cundum constitutionem Synodi Va- 
sensis, qui oblationem fidelium sup- 
presserit, aut negaverit, ab ecclesia, 
cui fraudem fecit, excludatur.—This 
is canon 4, according to Labbe’s 
edition of this Council, (see t. 4. p. 
1016 d.) Crabbe terms it locus ob- 
scurus in the margin, while he in- 
troduces the last five canons of the 
Council, viz. from 26 to 30 inclu- 
sive, with the followig preface : 
Capita hec sequentia, quia superius 
titulos non habent, preferunt nescio 
quid, preterquam quod multa obscu- 
ritate laborant. Certe huc non spec- 
tare liquido constat ex hoc, quod 
Synodum Vasensem allegant, que 
longe post hance Arelatensem habita 
Suit tempore Leonis. Ev.|—Conf. 
C. Turon. 2. 0: 24. (t. 5. p. 863 e.) 
Illud quoque, &c. —[ juxt. Crabb. 
c. 25. (t. 2. p. 142.) Illud quoque, 
&c.—To the same purport, and 
closing with this decree :—Convenit, 
eos omnino una conniventia simul, 
cum nostris abbatibus ac presbyte- 
ris, vel clero, qui stipendiis ex ipso 
alimento pascuntur, quia arma no- 
bis non sunt alia, auxiliante choro, 
circumsepto clericali choro, necatori 
pauperum, qui res pervadit ecclesia, 
Psalmus 108.* dicatur; ut veniat su- 
per eum illa maledictio, que super 


[* The togth of the Authorized Version. Ep. } 


310 The great crimes, 
same sentence of excommunication; reducing clergymen, when 
found guilty of this crime, to the communion of strangers, 
which was a punishment peculiar to them, of which more 
hereafter. 

I have already shown in a former Book *4 that for this rea- 
son bishops, who were intrusted with the goods and revenues 
of the Church, were not allowed to alienate any part of them, 
except it were in great necessity, to relieve the poor, or redeem 
captives; in which case, St. Ambrose himself, and many others, 
disposed of the plate of the altar, and the vessels and utensils 
belonging to the church; thinking it better that the animate 
temples of God should want their ornaments, than that his 
living temples should perish for want of relief. This was not 
sacrilege in the eye of the law, either ecclesiastical or civil, but 
an act of mercy allowed by both: for the laws against sacrilege, 
next to the honour of God, had always a view to the necessities 


. of the poor: and therefore as this practice tended to relieve 


Of sacrilege 
committed 
in robbing 
of graves. 


them in great exigencies, it was Just the reverse of that inhu- 
man sacrilege, which the Ancients called ‘ murdering the poor,’ 
against which so many severe laws were made to abolish and 
correct it. 

24. Another great crime of near a-kin to the former, which 
was sometimes condemned and punished under the name saeri- 
lege, was robbing of graves, or defacing and spoiling the mo- 
numents of the dead. These were always esteemed a sort of 
sacred repositories and inviolable sanctuaries, even by the very 
Heathen, as appears from the edict of Julian*, and what Go- 
thofred°® has collected at large out of the old laws and Hea- 
then writers upon the subject. And the violation of them was 
always esteemed a piacular crime, and sometimes punished with 
death. The imperial laws made it capital, and therefore when 


Judam venit, qui, dum loculos face- 
ret, subtrahebat pauperum alimen- 
ta, ut non solum excommunicatus, 
sed etiam anathema moriatur, et 
celesti gladio feriatur, qui in de- 
spectu Dei et ecclesize et pontificum, 
in hae pervasione presumit assur- 
gere.—According to Labbe, this de- 
cree forms c. 25. (ibid. p. 864 e.) 
and is to the same purport, though 
the readings somewhat vary. Ep 


54 B. 5. ch. 6. ss.6. and 7. v. 2. 
pp- 187—190. 

55 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 17. de Se- 
pulcris, leg. 5. (t.3. p. 144.) Pergit 
audacia ad busta diem functorum, 
et aggeres consecratos: cum et la- 
pidem hinc movere, terram solici- 
tare, et cespitem vellere, proximum 
sacrilegio majores semper habue- 
rint. 

56 In leg. 2. ibid. (pp. 139, 5644.) 


XVL vie 


ne ee φρο τον Ὅκὸν 


§ 24. 


sacrilege, Sc. 311 


the Christian emperors at Easter granted their indulgence or 
pardon to criminals in prison®’, they still excepted robbers of 
graves among those other flagitious criminals which were to 
have no benefit from their indulgence, as has been shown be- 
fore®s, in speaking of those called atrocia crimina, great and 
capital crimes. That which tempted men to commit this 
wickedness, was, that often riches and jewels were buried with 
the dead, and fine marble pillars and statues, ornaments and 
monuments, were erected over their graves; all which became 
spoil and plunder to such as were impiously and sacrilegiously 
disposed to invade them. 

Now as the imperial laws prosecuted such criminals with 
suitable punishments, fines, tortures, transportation, and death; 
so the ecclesiastical laws pursued them with spiritual penalties, 
agreeable to her spiritual regimen and jurisdiction. Gregory 
Nyssen°? says, ‘the holy fathers teach us to place the viola- 
tion of burial places among those sins which are to be expi- 
ated by public penance.’ But he distinguishes two degrees 
of this crime ®°: the one punishable by ecclesiastical censure, the 
other not so. For if any one took the stones or materials, which 
are usually cast up before the burial places of the dead, and 
applied them to some other useful purpose, without exposing 
the corpse to the air or light, or offering any abuse or injury 
to it: though this was not commendable or allowable; for in- 
deed the Civil Law®! absolutely forbad it, as was said before ; 


57 Ibid. tit. 38. de Paes ie 
Criminum, legg. 2 4,7, 8. See be- 
fore. ch. 4. 8.2. p. 197. nn. 2 4.5 
—Conf. Valentin. Novel. δ. e- 
pulehr. Ad calc. Cod. Theod. “(t. 6. 
oo. p- 22.) Diligenter, quidem, 

6 


58 Ch. 4. 5. 2, of this Book, p.197. 

59 Ep. Rakin: ad Letoium, c. 6. 
{t. 2. ΡΟ 21 ἃ.) Μόνην τὴν κλοπὴν, 
καὶ τὴν τυμβωρυχίαν, καὶ τὴν ἱεροσυ- 
λίαν, πάθη νομίζομεν" διὰ τὸ οὕτως 
ἐκ τῆς τῶν πατέρων ἀκολουθίας τὴν 
παράδοσιν ἡμῖν περὶ τούτου γενέσθαι. 

6 C. 7. (p- $32 c.) * H δὲ τυμβωρυ- 
χία καὶ αὐτὴ διήρηται εἰς τὸ “σύγγνω- 
στόν τε καὶ ἀσύγγνωστον. Εἰ “μὲν γάρ 
τις, τῆς οὐσίας φειδόμενος, καὶ ἄσυλον 
ἀφεὶς τὸ κεκρυμμένον σῶμα, ὡς μὴ 
ἀναδειχθῆναι ἡλίῳ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην 
τῆς φύσεως, λίθοις τισὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ 


τάφῳ προβεβλημένων συγχωρήσαιτο 
εἰς ἔργου τινὸς κατασκευήν ἐπαίνε- 
τον μὲν οὐδὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν πλὴν ἀλλὰ 
σύγγνωστον ἐποίησεν ἡ συνήθεια, ὅ- 
ταν εἰς προτιμότερόν τι καὶ κοινωφε- 
λέστερον ἡ τῆς ὕλης μετάθεσις γίνη- 
ται. 

61 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 17. de Se- 
pulcris Violatis, leg. 1. (t. 3. p. 137-) 
Si quis in demoliendis sepulchris fu- 
erit apprehensus, si id sine domini 
conscientia faciat, metallo adjudice- 
tur: si vero domini auctoritate vel 
jussione urgetur, relegatione plecta- 
tur.—Leg. 2. (p. 138.) Factum, soli- 
tum sanguine vindicari, mulcte in- 
flictione corrigimus: atque ita sup- 
plicium statuimus in futurum, ut 
nec ille absit a peena, qui ante com- 
misit. Universi itaque, qui de mo- 
numentis columnas vel marmora ab- 


312 The great crimes, 


yet custom however exempted this from any public punishment 
in the Church, because there was some benefit in it by an ap- 
plication of the materials to a more useful purpose; and as 
Gothofred® also observes, ‘there was something of seeming 
zeal in it, to demolish the Heathen altars and images, which 
were often erected at the graves of Pagans.’ But then, as 
Gregory ® adds, ‘there was another degree of this crime, 
which was more horrible, when men raked into the ashes of 
the dead, and disturbed their bones, in pursuit of treasure, 
cloths or other ornaments, that might be buried with them :’ 
and this, he says, was punished with the same term of pe- 
nance as simple fornication; that is, nine years in the several 
stations of repentance. The fourth Council of Toledo makes 
it a double punishment for any clergyman to be guilty of this 
crime: ‘If any clerk is apprehended demolishing sepulchres, 
forasmuch as this is a crime of sacrilege punishable with death 
by the public laws, he ought by the canons to be deposed from 
his orders, and after that do three years’ penance for such his 
transgression.” The reader that pleases may see elegant in- 
vectives against this crime in Sidonius Apollinaris® and St. 


XVL. vi. 


stulerunt, vel coquende calcis gra- 
tia lapides dejecerunt, ex consulatu 
scilicet Dalmatii et Zenophili, sin- 
gulas libras auri per singula sepul- 
chra fisci rationibus inferant, &e.— 
Leg. 3. (p. 142.) Quosdam comperi- 
mus, lucri nimium cupidos, sepul- 
chra subvertere et substantiam fa- 
bricandi ad proprias edes transferre, 
hi detecto scelere animadversionem 
priscis legibus definitam subire de- 
_bebunt. 

62 In leg. 5. ibid. (p. 145.) Scili- 
cet Antiocheni Christiani non modo 
ornatum sepulchrorum minuebant, 
ex porticibus et tricliniis sepulchra- 
libus columnas et marmora ad edi- 
ficia sua transferentes, verum etiam 
sepulchra dissipabant, terra solici- 
tata, cespite vulso, titulis etiam pro- 
cul dubio erasis, statuisque et aris 
detractis. Fuit hee scilicet Christi- 
anorum, invalescente Christiana re- 
ligione, ut in templis, ita et sepul- 
chris evertendis, ut Julianus vocare 
voluit, audacia, sive potius zelus; 
qui si remissior fuisset, tituli saltem 


stetissent, cadavera ipsa non inqui-~ 
etarentur: et hoc fine stetisset su- 
perstitionis eversio, bonum factum 
pronuntiarent omnes: sed id ita ex- 
igere visa sunt tempora: et nec quic- 
quam, id est, frustra a Christianis 
ante Julianum imperatoribus, civili- 
bus de causis, a Juliano vero religio- 
nis majorum amore, ut hoc edicto 
satis indicat, repressum. 

63 [Ubi supra, c. 7. (ibid. p. 122 
c.) Τὸ δὲ διερευνᾶσθαι τὴν κόνιν ἀπὸ 
τῆς γεωθείσης σαρκὸς, καὶ ἀνακινεῖν 
τὰ ὀστᾶ, ἐλπίδι τοῦ κόσμον τινὰ τῶν 
συγκατορυχθέντων κερδᾶναι, τοῦτο τῷ 
αὐτῷ κρίματι κατεδικάσθη, ᾧ καὶ ἡ 
ψιλὴ πορνεία, kK. τ.Ὰ. Grischov.]} 

64 C. 45. [al. 46.] (t. 5. p. 1717 b.) 
Si quis clericus in demoliendis se- 
pulchris fuerit deprehensus, quia fa- 
cinus hoc pro sacrilegio legibus pub- 
licis sanguine vindicatur: oportet 
canonibus in tali scelere proditum, a 
clericatus ordine submoveri, et poe- 
nitentiz triennio deputari. 

65 L. 3. Ep. 12. (p. 206.) Avi mei, 
proavi tui tumulum, &c. 


. ET ieee 


Catteni 


§ 24, 25. sacrilege, §c. 313 


Chrysostom ®, who justly represent it as one of the most unna- 
tural and inhuman barbarities that can be offered to the nature 
of man, because the dead are altogether innocent and passive, 
and in a condition to excite pity and compassion only ; bemng 
destitute and without ability to resist or right themselves 
against invaders. 
25. Another sort of men, who were anciently accused and The sacri- 
condemned as sacrilegious persons, were those whom they com- [ἐς °f the 


ancient 
monly called traditores, for delivering up their Bibles, and sree 
other sacred utensils of the Church, to the Heathen to be ane ae 
burnt, in the time of the Diocletian persecution. The first et 
Council of Arles®7, held immediately after the persecution, utensils to 
makes it deposition from his order for any clergyman, who κω τιον 
could be convicted of the public acts of this crime, either of be- burnt. 
traying the Scriptures, or any of the holy vessels, or the names 

of his brethren, to the persecutors. The Donatists frequently, 

but falsely, objected this crime to Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, 

and those that ordained him, that they were traditores : upon 

which St. Austin 65 tells them, ‘ that if they could evidently make 

good the charge, the Catholics would not scruple to anathema- 

tize them after death.’ But the truth of the matter was, these 

very objectors were traditores themselves, though they had 

the impudence to absolve one another, while they threw the 


charge upon innocent men, as Optatus®? and St. Austin7° show 


66 Hom. 35. in 1 Cor. p. 6. (t. 10. 
PageG)..-.. Οὐδὲ τελευτήσας τῆς 
τῶν ληστευόντων κακουργίας ἀπήλ- 
λακται, K.T.A. 

67 C. 13. (t. 1. p. 1421 d.) De his, 
qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse di- 
cuntur, vel vasa Dominica, vel no- 
mina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis, 
ut quicunque eorum in [al. ex] actis 
publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis 
nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur. 

68 Ep. 1. [4]. 185. c.1.] ad Boni- 
fac. (t.2. p. 644 d.) Testimoniis e- 
nim divinis lites suas preferunt, 
quia in causa Ceciliani, quondam 
ecclesiz Carthaginensis episcopi, cui 
crimina objecerunt, que nec potu- 
erunt probare, nec possunt, se ab 
ecclesia Catholica, hoc est, ab unitate 
omnium gentium diviserunt. Quam- 
vis et si vera essent, que ab eis ob- 
jecta sunt Ceciliano, et nobis pos- 
sent aliquando monstrari, ipsum jam 


mortuum anathematizaremus.—Ep. 
152. [al. 141.] ad Donatist. (ibid. p. 
458 c, d.) Nam cum ventum fu- 
isset ad causam etiam Ceeciliani, 
quam nos ab ecclesiz causa distin- 
guebamus, ut si forte malus esset 
inventus, ipsum anathematizaremus, 
&ce. ..—Ibid.(p.459 b.) In ipsa causa 
Ceciliani, quam licet ad ecclesiz 
causam non pertinentem, tamen de- 
fendendam suscepimus, ut etiam ibi 
calumniz manifestarentur ipsorum, 
apertissime victi sunt, nihilque eo- 
rum, que in Cecilianum intende- 
bant, probare potuerunt. 

69 L. 1. p.39. (p. 30.) Jamdudum 
opinionis incertz, et inter caligines, 
quas livor et invidia exhalaverat, la- 
tere veritas videbatur. Sed etiam 
omnis Scriptura memorata, et Acto- 
rum voluminibus, et Epistolis com- 
memoratis aut lectis revelata est. 
Vides, frater Parmeniane, in Catho- 


The sacri- 
lege of pro- 
faning 

the sacra- 
ments, and 
churches, 
and altars, 
and the 
Holy Scrip- 
tures, &c. 


314 The great crimes, 


out of the Acts of their own Council of Cirta, where they acted 
this comedy, which stood as a witness against them. 

26. Neither was this the only sacrilege the Donatists were 
guilty of, but they and their accomplices stand charged with 
many others. Optatus7! objects to them their breaking and 
burning the communion-tables which they found in the Ca- 
tholic churches. And their profaning the holy sacrament in a 
most vile manner, of which he gives a most remarkable in- 
stance. Some of the Donatist bishops, in their mad zeal, or- 
dered the eucharist which they found in the Catholic churches 
to be thrown to the dogs; but not without an immediate sign of 
divine vengeance upon them: for the dogs, instead of devour- 
ing the elements, fell upon their masters, as if they had never 
known them, and tore them to pieces, as robbers, and pro- 
faners of the holy body of Christ: which makes Optatus72 put 
them in mind of that admonition of our Saviour, “‘ Give not 
that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls 
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn 
again and rend you.” [Matth. 7, 6, 7.] It was a like profana- 
tion of the holy eucharist, which Cornelius7? charges upon No- 


A I Tr pent he ὡκῶν 


licos traditorum nomine falso ob- 
jecto, frustra esse inventum [al. in- 
vectum]: mutans videlicet personas 
et transferens merita: cldusisti ocu- 
los, ne parentes tuos reos agnosce- 
res: aperuisti eos, ut innocentes et 
indignos crimini copulares. 

70 Cont. Crescon. 1. 3. c. 27, &c. 
(t. 9. pp. 449, 452.—Conf. Ep. 152. 
al. 141.] {t. 2. p. 459 b,c.) Insu- 
per etiam de criminibus traditionis 
nos Episcopalia Gesta protulimus, 
unde recitavimus aliquos eorum e- 
piscoporum, qui sententias in ab- 
sentem dixerant Cecilianum, mani- 
festissimos fuisse traditores. Con- 
tra ipsa Gesta illi, quia non habe- 
bant quod dicerent, falsa esse dixe- 
runt; sed nullo modo probare potu- 
erunt. 

71 L. 6. pp. 94, 95. (p. 111.) Quid 
est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria 
Dei, in quibus et vos aliquando 
obtulistis, frangere, radere, remo- 
vere .... Quid est altare, nisi sedes 
et corporis et sanguinis Christi? 
Hee omnia furor vester aut rasit, 
aut fregit, aut removit ... Ut remo- 


verentur, ex parte verecundia jussit: 
ubique tamen nefas est, dum tante 
rei manus sacrilegas et impias intu- 
listis. Quid perditorum conductam 
referam multitudinem, et vinum in 
mercedem sceleris datum? Quod ut 
immundo ore sacrilegis haustibus 
biberetur, calida de fragmentis alta- 
rium facta est. 

72 L. 2. p.55. (p-50-)...Ne dede- 
ritis sanctum canibus, neque mise- 
ritis margaritas ante porcos, ne con- 
culcent pedibus suis eas, et conversi 
elidant vos. 

73 Ep. ad Fabium, ap. Euseb. 1. 6. 
C43. (V. 1. Ρ. 315. 3.) Ποιήσας yap 
τὰς προσφορὰς, καὶ διανέμων ἑκάστῳ 
τὸ μέρος, καὶ ἐπιδιδοὺς τοῦτο ὀμνύειν 
ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐλογεῖν τοὺς ταλαιπώρους 
ἀνθρώπους ἀναγκάζει, κατέχων ἀμφο- 
τέραις ταῖς χερσὶ τὰς τοῦ λαβόντος, 
καὶ μὴ ἀφεὶς, ἔστ᾽ ἂν ὀμνύοντες εἴ- 
πῶωσι ταῦτα" τοῖς γὰρ ἐκείνου χρήσο- 
μαι λόγοις" ᾽Ομοσόν μοι κατὰ τοῦ 
σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μηδὲ ποτέ με 
καταλιπεῖν, καὶ ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς Κορ- 
νήλιον. 


XVI. vie 


ap ht. ov 


§ 26. 


sacrilege, Se. 315 


vatian, when he obliged his partizans, instead of saymg Amen! 
at the reception of it, to swear by the body and blood of Christ 
that they would never desert his party, nor return to Corne- 
lius. It was also reckoned a piece of sacrilege to give the 
Catholic churches to heretics, in which St. Ambrose stoutly op- 
posed the younger Valentinian, when he sent him an order to 
deliver up one of the churches of Milan to the Arians; he re- 
turned him this courageous answer7!: ‘Those things which 
are God’s are not subject to the Emperor’s power. If my 
patrimony is demanded, you may invade it; if my body, I will 
offer it of my own accord. I will not fly to the altar and sup- 
plicate for life, but more joyfully sacrifice my life for the 
altar.’ There are some instances of men turning churches into 
stables’°: but as these were very abominable, so there were but 
few that fell into such prodigious profanations. 

We may reckon also all sorts of idolatry, and divination, and 
magic, and the abuse of Scriptures for lots and charms and 
amulets, among the species of sacrilege, as some of the ancient 
Councils7° do: but I have spoken fully of these under former 
heads, [in the third and following sections of the fifth chap- 
ter,] and therefore there is no occasion here to repeat them. 
I only add, that to molest or hinder a clergyman in the per- 
formance of his proper office by avoeation to other business, 
and laying him under a necessity of following other employ- 
ments, inconsistent with the duties of his proper station and 


function, is in the Civil Law called sacrilege. Constantine in 


74 Ep. 33. [al. 20.] ad Marcellin. 
de Tradendis Basilicis. (t. 2. p. 854 
c. n.8.)..... Ea, que sunt divina, 
imperatoriz potestati non esse sub- 
jecta. Si patrimonium petitur, in- 
vadite: si corpus, occurram. Vultis 
in mortem? Voluptati est mihi. Non 
ego me vallabo circumfusione po- 
pulorum, nec altaria tenebo vitam 
obsecrans, sed pro altaribus gratius 
immolabor. 

75 Vid. Baron. an. 572. (t.7. p.575-) 
Charibertus rex, cum, exosis cleri- 
cis, ecclesias Dei negligeret, despec- 


.tisque sacerdotibus, magis in luxu- 


riam declinasset ; ingestum est ejus 
auribus, locum quendam, quem ba- 
silica S. Martini diuturno tempore 
retinebat, sisti suo juri reddique de- 
bere: loco autem illi Navicellis no- 


men prisca vetustas indiderat. Qui, 
accepto iniquo consilio, pueros ve- 
lociter misit, qui remiculam illam in 
suo dominio subjugarent. Cumque 
hee recte possidens videretur ha- 
bere, jussit in locum illum stabula- 
rios cum equitibus dirigi, ibique sine 
equitatis ordine precepit equos ali. 
76 Vid. C. Tolet. 4. c. 28. (t. 5. p. 
1714 b.) Si episcopus, aut presbyter, 
sive diaconus, aut quilibet ex ordine 
clericorum, magos, aut aruspices, 
aut ariolos, aut certe augures vel 
sortilegos, vel eos qui profitentur 
artem aliquam, aut aliquos eorum 
similia exercentes, consulere fuerit 
deprehensus, ab honore dignitatis 
suze depositus poenam excipiat, ibi- 
que perpetuz peenitentize deditus 
scelus admissum sacrilegii luat. 


316 The great crimes, 


his first settlement of religion made a law77, ‘that they who 
ministered in the service of God should be excused from all 
personal duties in the State ; that the sacrilegious envy of some 
who gave them disturbance might not withdraw them from the 
service of religion.’ And agreeable to the tenour of this law 
we find a rule of the Church as ancient as St. Cyprian7$, ‘ that 
no one should employ a clergyman in the business of a secular 
trust, to be a guardian or curator of his worldly concerns by 
his last will and testament, under the penalty of excommunica- 
tion, or having his name blotted out of the diptychs of the 
Church after death.’ 

There is an abundance of laws in the Theodosian Code, beside 
that of Constantine, settling great privileges, exemptions, and 
immunities upon the clergy, in regard to their office; as also 
upon churches, in regard to the respect and veneration that is 
due to them as the houses of God and places of divine worship: 
upon which account they were made sanctuaries or places of 
refuge for men in certain proper cases, whence they might not 
be taken by violence without the imputation of a sort of sacri- 
lege fixed on the invaders. But of all these privileges and im- 
munities I have had occasion to discourse at large before79, in 
speaking of churches and the clergy, and therefore need not 
here repeat them; but only mention a law of Honorius®®, 
which expressly charges the crime of sacrilege upon all such as 
offered any injury or affront to ministers officiating im the 
church, or to the service itself, or to the place: ordering all 


XVI. vi. 


77 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 2. de 
Epise. et Cler. leg. 2. (t.6. p. 22.) 
Qui divino cultui ministeria religio- 

-nis impendunt, id est, hi qui clerici 
appellantur, ab omnibus omnino mu- 
neribus excusentur: ne sacrilego li- 
vore quorundam a divinis obsequiis 
avocentur.— Vid. leg. 7. ibid. (p. 31.) 
Lectores divinorum apicum, et hy- 
podiaconi, czeterique clerici, qui per 
injuriam heereticorum ad curiam de- 
vocati sunt, absolvantur: et de cz- 
tero ad similitudinem Orientis mi- 
nime ad curias deyvocentur, sed im- 
munitate plenissima potiantur. 

78 Kp. 66. [4]. τ. ad Cler. Furni- 
tan. p. 3. (p. 169.) ... Cum jam pri- 
dem in concilio episcoporum statu- 
tum sit, ne quis de clericis et Dei 


ministris tutorem vel curatorem tes- 
tamento suo constituat, &c. 

79 B.5. ch. 3. v. 2. p. 129.—B. 8. 
ch. II. v. 3. p. 202. 

80 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 2. de 
Episc. leg. 31. (t. 1. p. 66.) Si quis 
in hoc genus sacrilegii proruperit, 
in ecclesias Catholicas irruens, sa- 
cerdotibus et ministris, vel ipsi cul- 
tui, locoque aliquid importet injurie, 
.... provinciz moderator sacerdo- 
tum et Catholice ecclesiz ministro- 
rum, loci quoque ipsius, et divini 
cultus injuriam capitali in convictos. 
sive confessos reos sententia noverit 
vindicandum. Nec expectet ut = 
scopus injuriz propriz ultionem de- 
poscat, cui sanctitas ignoscendi so- 
lum gloriam dereliquit, &e. 


un eee rel νυν AE νας 


— 


a, 


§ 26, 27. sacrilege, Sc. 317 


such criminals to be notified by public officers, not waiting for 
the bishop’s accusation of them to the governor of the province, 
who was to proceed against them and condemn them with the 
punishment of capital offenders. 

27. There is one species of sacrilege more which the casuists The sacri- 
of the Romish Church for a good reason never mention : that lege of de- 


ς : : :- Ss priving men 
is, the grand sacrilege of their own Church in depriving men of the use 


of the use of the Holy Scriptures and the cup in the Lord’s Haare ς 
Supper, both which, with unparalleled magisterial authority, pee of 
sete ker oe > an 
are sacrilegiously and injuriously taken from them. rey amas 
That the Ancients reckoned it the sin of sacrilege to divide ments, par- 
ticularly of 


the communion without reason, and deny men the use of the the cup in 
cup, needs no other proof at present but the testimony of ee 
Gelasius, one of their own Popes, which is still exstant in their 
Canon Law®!, in the words of the following decree: ‘We 
understand there are some who receive only a portion of the 
holy body, and abstain from the cup of the holy blood. Who 
doubtless, being bound by some vain superstition, ought either 
to receive the whole sacrament or to be excluded from the 
whole: because one and the same mystery cannot without 
grand sacrilege be divided.’ Such sacrilegious dividers of the 
communion are also condemned by Pope Leo®?, and ordered 
to be excommunicated. And they who take the eucharist and 
use it for any other end besides communicating are censured 
by the fourteenth canon of the first Council of Toledo, and the 
third canon of the Council of Cesaraugusta, as sacrilegious 
also, deserying to be banished the Church with anathema or 
excommunication. But of these I have discoursed more at 
large in a former Book 58, while speaking against communicating 
in one kind. 

There were many heretics in the ancient Church who were 
guilty of sacrilege in relation to the other sacrament of baptism. 
Some rejected it wholly, others corrupted it in the material 


81 Gelasius, ap. Gratian. de Con- 
secrat. distinct.2.c.12. (t. 1. p.1918. 
23.) Comperimus autem quod qui- 
dam, sumpta tantummodo corporis 
sacri portione, a calice sacri cruoris 
abstineant. Qui procul dubio, quo- 
niam nescio qua superstitione do- 
centur obstringi, aut age sacra- 
menta percipiant, aut ab integris 


arceantur: quia divisio unius ejus- 
demque mysterii sine grandi sacri- 
legio non potest provenire. 

82 Serm. 4. [al. 42. c. 3.] de Qua- 
dragesima. See before, b. 15. ch. 5. 
8.1. V. 5. p. 409. . 51. 

83 B. 15. ch. 4. 8.13. and ch.5. 
8.1. V. 5. pp. 391 and 405. 


318 The great crimes, XVI. vi 


part, and others in the form of words necessary to the ad- 


ministration : of all which the reader may find a large account’ 


in a former Book®*, which particularly handles the subject of 
baptism. But there were none that ever presumed sacri- 
legiously to deny Christians their proper birthright, which is 
to read the Scriptures. Some heretics corrupted them; and 
others rejected such parcels of them as they thought most 
opposite to their peculiar notions: but none who allowed them 
to be the inspired writings and oracles of the Holy Ghost ever 
denied the people liberty to search-and examine them for their 
own instruction. This is a piece of sacrilege peculiar to these 
later ages, which the Ancients knew nothing of, and therefore 
had no occasion to make canons or rules of discipline to cor- 
rect it. There are many exhortations to read the Scriptures; 
but no orders to keep them locked up in an unknown tongue, 
or to forbid the people to use them upon any occasion. And 
the only reason why there are no censures anciently to be 
found against this sort of sacrilege is because the sin itself was 
utterly unknown to the primitive ages. 

There was indeed sometimes a neglect in ignorant or careless 
teachers in preaching the word of God to the people: and this 
is censured by some laws even in the Civil Code®®, as a sacri- 
legious withdrawing from the people the necessary food of their 
souls. But of this I need say no more in this place, having 
fully represented the laws obliging bishops and presbyters to 
be faithful and diligent in discharging this part of their duty 
while we were discoursing of preaching*%® and the usages re- 
lating to it in the ancient Church. 

There are some other things which sometimes bear the name 
of sacrilege ; but because they more properly belong to other 
species of sin, as breach of vows to perjury, and defilement of 
consecrated virgins to fornication, we will consider the disci- 
pline and treatment of these and the like offences under their 
proper heads, and proceed to the last sort of sin, which shows 
irreverence to God in the use of sacred things, commonly 
called stmony, which is also a sort of sacrilege, because it sets 

84 B. 11. chh. 2 and 3. v. 4. pp. aut nesciendo confundunt, aut neg- 

—44. ligendo violant et oftendunt, sacrile- 
85 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 2. de gium committunt. 


Epise. leg. 25, Theodos. M. (t. 6. 86 B. 14. ch. 4. 8.2. V. 5. p. 92. 
Ρ. 57.) Qui divine legis sanctitatem 


ἡ 





§ 27, 28. 319 


simony, δ᾽ 6. 


spiritual and sacred things to sale, which are not the subject of 
a secular eontract. 

28. This is commonly distinguished by the Ancients into Of esata 
three sorts. 1. Buying and selling of spiritual gifts. 2. Buy- rete 
ing and selling of spiritual preferments. 3. Ambitious usurpa- aan 
tion and sacrilegious intrusion into ecclesiastical functions with- 
out any legal election or ordination. 

The first sort was that which most properly had the name 
of stmony from Simon Magus, who pretended with money to 
purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost, [Acts 8, 18 and 19.] 

And this was always thought to be committed when men either 
offered or received money for ordinations. Which was a crime 
of a very high nature, and always punished with the severest 
censures of the Church. The Apostolical Canons 37 seem to lay 
a double punishment, both deposition and excommunication, 
upon such of the clergy as were found guilty of this crime: 
‘If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon obtain this dignity for 
money, both he that is ordained and the ordainer shall be 
deposed, and also cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus 
was by Peter... The general Council of Chalcedon has a 
canon 55 to the same purpose: ‘If any bishop gave an ordina- 
tion or any ecclesiastical office or preferment of any kind for 
money, he himself shall lose his office, and the party so pre- 
ferred be deposed.’ The same punishment is appointed in the 
second Council of Orleans*9, the second of Braga, the fourth 


87 C, 29. [al. 30. s. 28.] (Cotel. 


vovpevos μηδὲν ἐκ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐμπορίαν 
[e. 22.] v. 1. Pp. 441. ) Ei τις ἐπίσκο- 


ὠφελείσθω χειροτονίας ἢ προβολῆς, 


πος διὰ χρημάτων τῆς ἀξίας ταύτης 
ἐγκρατὴς γένηται, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ 
διάκονος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς, καὶ 
ὁ χειροτονήσας, καὶ ἐκκοπτέσθω παν- 
τάπασι καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας, ὡς Σίμων ὁ 
sg ΡΥ ἢ ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου. 

C. 2. (t. 4. p- 465 Ὁ.) Εἴ τις 
ἐπίσκοπος ἐπὶ χρήμασι χειροτονίαν 
ποιήσαιτο, καὶ εἰς πράσιν καταγάγῃ 
τὴν ἄπρατον χάριν, καὶ or past 
ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἐπίσκοπον, ἢ χωρεπί- 
σκοπον, ἣ πρεσβύτερον, ἢ ἢ διάκονον, ἢ 
ἕτερόν τινα τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ καταριθ- 
μουμένων, ἢ προβάλλοιτο ἐπὶ χρήμα- 
σιν ἢ οἰκονόμον, ἢ ἔκδικον, ἢ ἢ προσμο- 
νάριον, ἢ ὅλως τινὰ τοῦ κανόνος, δι 
αἰσχροκέρδειαν οἰκείαν" ὁ τοῦτο ἐπι- 
χειρήσας, ἐλεγχθεὶς, περὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον 


᾿ © 


κινδυνευέτω βαθμόν" καὶ ὁ χειροτο- 


ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω ἀλλότριος τῆς ἀξίας, ἢ ἢ τοῦ 
φροντίσματος, οὗπερ ἐπὶ χρήμασιν 
ἔτυχεν. 

89 C. 3. (ibid. p. 1780 d.) Ne quis 
episcopus de quibuslibet causis, 
vel episcoporum  ordinationibus, 
ceterorumque clericorum, aliquid 
preesumat accipere: quia sacerdo- 
tem nefas est cupiditatis venalitate 
corrumpi.—C. 4. (ibid. e.) Si quis 
sacerdotium per pecunie nundinum 
execrabili ambitione quesierit, abji- 
ciatur ut reprobus: quia apostolica 
sententia donum Dei esse precipit, 
χροὶ τ trutina minime comparan- 


ὋὋ ΤΑΙ. Bracar. 3.] c. 3. (t.5. p. 
897 b.) Placuit, ut de ordinationibus 
clericorum episcopi munera nulla 


320 The great crimes, 


of Toledo?!, the eleventh of Toledo 92, the Council of Constan- 
tinople under Gennadius®, the Decrees of Gelasius%+, Sym- 
machus?°, Hormisdas%, and Gregory the Great, St. Basil, 
the second Council of Nice92, and the Council of Trullo?. 
Particularly the eighth Council of Toledo? makes it both de- 
gradation and excommunication in every clerk so ordained. 
And also punishes the receivers of simoniacal gifts with equal 


suscipiant, sed, sicut scriptum est, 
quod gratis donante Deo accipiunt, 
gratis dent. Et non aliquo pretio 
gratia Dei et impositio manuum ve- 
nundetur : quia antiqua definitio Pa- 
trum ita de ecclesiasticis ordinatio- 
nibus statuit, dicens, Anathema sit 
danti et accipienti, &c. 

91 C.18. (ibid. p. 1711 c. et p. 
1712 c.) Perniciosa consuetudo ne- 
quaquam est reticenda, que, majo- 
rum statuta preeteriens, omnem ec- 
clesie ordinem perturbavit; dum 
alii per ambitum sacerdotium appe- 
tunt, alii oblatis muneribus pontifi- 
catum assumunt....Si quis deinceps 
contra predicta vetita canonum ad 
gradum sacerdotii indignus aspirare 
contenderit, cum ordinatoribus suis 
adepti honoris periculo subjacebit. 

% C.8. Seen. 5, following. 

% Ep. Synod. (t. 4. p. 1026 e.) 
Οὐαὶ τῷ ὄντι τοῖς κτήσασθαι τὴν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ δωρεὰν ἢ διδόναι ταύτην διὰ 
χρημάτων ὑπειληφόσιν᾽ εἰς γὰρ χολὴν 
πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας οἱ τοι- 
οὗτοι, κατὰ τὴν ἀπόφασιν τοῦ ἁγίου 
Πέτρου,ὑπάρχουσι, συλληφθέντες ὑπὸ 
τῆς ἑαυτῶν φιλαργυρίας. 

94 Decret. Ep.1. ad Episc. Lu- 
canie, c. 26. (ibid. p. 1194 b.)... 
Quos vero constiterit indignos me- 
ritis, sacram mercatos esse pretio 
dignitatem, convictos oportet arceri 
non sine periculo facinus tale perpe- 
trantes: quia dantem pariter et ac- 
cipientem damnatio Simonis, quam 
sacra lectio testatur, involvit. 

% Decret. c. 2. (ibid. Ὁ. 1295 6.) 
Illud magnopere commonentes, ut 
hi, qui non Dei gratia, sed promis- 
sione rerum ecclesiasticarum pre- 
miis ad sacerdotium conantur acce- 
dere, desideriorum talium priventur 
effectu. Qui autem ab hujusmodi 
se intentione cohibeant, aut vindictis 


canonum sciant se sine dubitatione 
subdendos. 

96 Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. c. 2. 
(ibid. p. 1467 d.) Hoc quoque ad 
premissa adjungimus, ne benedic- 
tionem, que divina esse creditur, 
per impositionem manus, quis pre- 
tio comparet: quoniam ante oculos 
esse convenit, quod Simon Spiri- 
tum Sanctum volens redemptione 
mercari, Apostoli fuerit detestatione 
percussus. 

97 L.7. Ep. rrr. (CC.5. p.1371 d.) 
Et vehementi tedio meeroris affici- 
mur, si in ecclesiasticis officiis quem- 
quam habeat locum pecunia. 

98 Ep. 76. ad Epise. (CC. t. 2. p. 
1771 Ὁ.) Φασί τινες, τινὰς ὑμῶν παρὰ 
τῶν χειροτονουμένων λαμβάνειν χρή- 
pata, K.T.A. 

99 C.5. (t.7. p.go6 6.) Si quis 
episcopis pecuniis ordinationem fe- 
cerit, ... proprii gradus id faciat pe- 
riculo. 

' Ὁ. 22. (t.6. p. 1154 a.) Τοὺς ἐπὶ 
χρήμασι χειροτονουμένους, εἴτε ἐπι- 
σκόπους, εἴτε οἱουσδήποτε κληρικοὺς, 
καὶ οὐ κατὰ δοκιμασίαν καὶ τοῦ βίου 
αἵρεσιν, καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάσσομεν, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς χειροτονήσαντας. 

2 C.3. (Ed. Crabb. t. 2. p. 243. 
ad cale. col. sinistr.) Quicunque 
propter accipiendam sacerdotii dig- 
nitatem quodlibet premium fuerit 
detectus obtulisse, ex eodem tem- 
pore se noverit anathematis oppro- 
brio condemnatum, atque a partici- 
patione Christi corporis et sanguinis 
alienum ... Illi vero, qui hac causa 
munerum acceptores exstiterint; si 
clerici fuerint, honoris amissione 
mulctentur ; si laici, anathemate 
perpetuo condemnentur. [This ca- 
non is somewhat differently worded 
in Labbe and Cossart. See CC. t. 
6. p. 404 ἃ. Ep.] 


XVI. vi. 


ieee aD 


§ 28. 


simony, §c. 321 


severity ; if clergymen, with the loss of their honour ; if lay- 
men, with perpetual excommunication to the hour of death. 
And the Civil Law® also provided in this case, to prevent 
simoniacal ordinations, that both persons ordained and also 
their electors and ordainers should all take an oath that there 
was nothing given or received, or so much as contracted or 
promised, for any such election or ordination. And+ for any 
bishop to ordain another without observing this rule is depo- 
sition by the same law, both for himself and him that is so 
ordained by him. 

The Ancients also reduce to this sort of simony the exacting 
of any reward for administering baptism, or the eucharist, or 
confirmation, or burying, or consecration of churches, or any 
the like spiritual ἔπος! which were to be administered freely 
without demanding any reward. The Council of Trullo® par- 
ticularly forbids any clergyman to require any thing for ad- 
ministering the eucharist ; ‘ For grace is not to be set to sale, 
neither do we impart the sanctification of the Spirit for money, 
but give it without craft to all that are worthy. And he that 
does otherwise shall be deposed as a follower of the wicked 


error of Simon Magus.’ 


3 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 1. See 
Sa. eh. 2.8.18. v.32. p: 31. n. 4. 
—Novel. 137. 6. 2. See ibid., the se- 
cond part of n. 4. 

4 Ibid. c. 2. (t. 5. p.540.) Si quis 
autem citra memoratam observatio- 
nem episcopus ordinetur, jubemus 
hune omnibus modis episcopatu de- 
pelli. 

Pe. a3. (t, 6. Ῥ. 1154 a.) Περὶ 
τοῦ μηδένα, εἴτε ἐ ἐπίσκοπον, εἴτε πρεσ- 
βύτερον, ἢ διάκονον, τῆς ᾿ἀχράντου 
μεταδιδόντα κοινωνίας, παρὰ τοῦ με- 
τέχοντος εἰσπράττειν, τῆς τοιαύτης 
μεταλήψεως χάριν, ὀβολοὺς ἢ εἶδος 
τὸ οἱονοῦν" οὐδὲ γὰρ πεπραμένη ἡ 
χάρις, οὐδὲ χρήμασι τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τοῦ 
Πνεύματος μεταδίδομεν" ἀλλὰ τοῖς 
ἀξίοις τοῦ δώρου ἀπανουργεύτως με- 
ταδοτέον. Ei δὲ φανείη τις τῶν ἐν 
κλήρῳ καταλεγομένων a ἀπαιτῶν, ᾧ με- 
ταδίδωσι τῆς ἀχράντου κοινωνίας, τὸ 
οἷονοῦν εἶδος, καθαιρείσθω, ὡς τῆς 
Σίμωνος ζηλωτὴς πλάνης καὶ κακουρ- 


γίας. ᾿ 
6 C. 8. (ibid. p. 550 c.) Quicquid 
invisibilis gratiz collatione tribuitur, 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


The eleventh Council of Toledo® for- 


nummorum questu, vel quibuslibet 
premiis venundari penitus non de- 
bet, dicente Domino, Quod gratis 
accepistis, gratis date. Et ideo qui- 
cunque deinceps in ecclesiastico or- 
dine constitutus, aut pro baptizandis 
consignandisque fidelibus, aut pro 
collatione chrismatis, vel promotio- 
nibus graduum, pretia queelibet, vel 
premia voluntarie oblata, pro hujus- 
modi ambitione susceperit; equi- 
dem, si sciente loci episcopo tale 
quidquam a subditis perpetratur, 
idem episcopus duobus mensibus 
excommunicationi subjaceat ; pro eo, 
quia et sciens mala contexit, et cor- 
rectionem necessariam non adhibuit. 
Sin autem suorum quispiam, eodem 
nesciente, quodcunque pro supra 
dictis capitulis accipiendum esse sibi 
crediderit ; si presbyter est, trium 
mensium excommunicatione plecta- 
tur; si diaconus, quatuor ; subdia- 
conus vero, vel clericus his cupidi- 
tatibus serviens, et competenti ver- 
bere et debita excommunicatione 
plectendus est. 


Y 


Of simony 


in purchas- . 


ing ecclesi- 
astical /pre- 
fermen ts. 


322 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


bids not only the taking of money for promotions to holy 
orders, but also for administering baptism, or confirmation, or 
chrism; and the bishop that connives at any of his clergy so 
doing, is ordered to be excommunicated for two months: and 
if a presbyter without his knowledge commits such offence, he 
is to be excommunicated four months: a deacon three months; 
and those of the inferior orders excommunicated at discretion. 
There are several other ancient canons to the same purpose in 
the Councils of Eliberis? and Braga’, and the Decrees of Ge- 
lasius 9, which have been mentioned on another occasion 19, 
where we treated of the proper methods of raising funds and 
maintenance for the clergy, and need not here be repeated. 
29. But they did not only call that stmony which consisted 
in trafficking for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but also all 
purchases made of the spiritual preferments of the Church, 
and all promotions made without just merit, out of mere favour 
and affection. The Council of Chalcedon ! not only threatens 
deposition to any bishop that sets grace to sale, and ordains a 
bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or any clerk 
for money; but also if he promotes an @conomus or steward, 
or an eedicus, that is, an advocate or defensor, or a paramo- 
narius, that is, a bailiff or steward of the lands, for his own 
filthy lucre. And both the clergy, so ordained, are to be de- 
graded; and the officers, so promoted, to lose their places : 
and if any one be instrumental as a mediator in such dishonour- 
able and unlawful traffic, if he be a clerk, he is to be degraded, 
if a layman or a monk, to be anathematized. 

By the laws of Justinian !?, every elector was to depose upon 
oath, that he did not choose the party elected either for any 
gift, or promise, or friendship, or any other cause, but only 
because he knew him to be a man of the true Catholic faith, 
and unblameable life, and good learning. Gregory the Great?}® 


7 C. 48. [juxt. Ed. Crabb. t. 1. Π 0.2. (ἃ. 4 Ρ. Ρ. 755“) Εἰ δέ τις 

Ρ. 284. juxt. Labb. et Cossart. c. 38. καὶ μεσιτεύων plat τοῖς οὕτως αἷσ- 
(t I. p.975 e.) See before, Ὁ. 5. xpois καὶ ἀθεμίτοις λήμμασιν, καὶ οὗ- 
ch. 4. 8.14. V.2. Ὁ. 12. π. 47. Ep.] Tos, εἰ "μὲν κληρικὸς εἴη, τοῦ οἰκείου 

8 Bracar. 2. ar 8): c. 7. See be- ἐκπιπτέτω βαθμοῦ" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἢ 
fore, ibid. p. 173. n. μονάζων, ἀναθεματιζέσθω. 

9 Ep. I. ἀπ 9.] Pi Epic. Lucan. 12 Novel. 123. c. 1. See a 
c. 7. See before, ibid. p.173.n.56. b.4. ch. 2. 5. 18. v. 2. p. 31. n. 

10 B, 5. ὉΠ ἦν 8. 14: v2. OD; 8 Hom. 2. in Evangel. (Ed. Be- 
17I—I174. ned. 1.1. in Evangel. Hom. 4. n. 4-] 


= ee 


simony, §c. 323 


§ 29, 30. 


says, ‘ There were some who took no reward of money for 
ordination, and yet were in some measure guilty of simony, 
because they gave holy orders for human favour, and thence 
sought the reward of praise and favour among men. They did 
not give freely what they had freely received, because for 
giving an holy office they required the gift of favour. For 
there were three sorts of bribes, one from obsequiousness, an- 
other from the hand, and another from the tongue. That from 
obsequiousness was a servile subjection unduly paid; that from 
the hand was money; that from the tongue was favour.’ But 
whether this sort of simony made men liable to ecclesiastical 
censure he does not say, but only speaks against it as a great 
corruption, from which they who give holy orders ought to 
keep themselves free, according to that of the Prophet, (Isa. 
33, 15.) “ He that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes.” 

30. The last sort of simony was when men by ambitious Of simony 

; 3 τ in ambi- 
arts and undue practices, by the favour and power of some tious usur- 
great or wealthy person, got themselves invested in any office Large of 
: ἢ oly offices 

or preferment to which they had no regular call or legal title, and intru- 
or when they intruded themselves into other men’s places, a an 
which were legally filled before. This was the common prac- places and 
tice of schismatical and other ambitious spirits, who would arn 
either thrust themselves irregularly into a vacant see, or usurp 
upon one that was already lawfully possessed and held by 
another. Thus Noyatian got himself clancularly and simoni- 
acally ordained to the bishopric of Rome, to which Cornelius 
had been legally ordained before him, as Cyprian! and others 
often complain. And so Majorinus was ordained anti-bishop 
of Carthage, in opposition to Czecilian, the legal bishop, by the 


(t. I. p. 1449 c. 5.) Sunt nonnulli, 
qui quidem nummorum premia ex 
ordinatione non accipiunt, et tamen 
sacros ordines pro humana gratia 
largiuntur, atque de largitate eadem 
laudis solummodo retributionem 
querunt. Hi nimirum, quod gratis 
acceptum est, gratis non tribuunt, 
quia de impenso officio sanctitatis 
nummum expetunt favoris. .. Aliud 
est munus ab obsequio, aliud munus 
a manu, aliud munus a lingua. Mu- 
nus quippe ab obsequio est subjec- 


tio indebite impensa, munus a ma- 
nu pecunia est, munus a lingua 
favor. 

I4 Ep. 52. [8]. 55.] ad Antonian. 
Ρ- 104. (p. 243.) Venio jam nune, 
&c.—Ep. 41. [al. 44.] ad Cornel. (p. 
230.).... Cum... Novatianum epi- 
scopum factum comperissimus, illi- 
cite et contra ecclesiam Catholicam 
facte ordinationis pravitate com- 
moti, &c.—Cornel. Ep. ad Fabium, 
ap. Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43. See before, 
8. 26. p. 314. 0. 73. 


> 
- 


324 XVI. vi. 


The great crimes, 


help of Lucilla!>, a wealthy woman, who spirited the faction 
that was the first beginning of the schism of the Donatists, as 
Optatus 16 and St. Austin 17 at large inform us. Now all such 
ordinations, being founded on ambition and usurpation, and 
generally obtained either by force, or favour, or fraud, or 
bribery, were usually vacated and declared null, and both the 
ordained and their ordainers prosecuted as criminals by de- 
gradation and reduction to the state and communion of lay- 
men: of which, because I have given a full account of it in a 
former Book 15, I will not stand to make any further proof in 
this place: but only note that it was equally a simoniacal 
crime for any bishop ambitiously to thrust himself irregularly 
into any vacant see, or remove himself by any sinister arts 
from a lesser see to a greater, in contempt and despite of the 
rules prescribed by the Church in that case to be observed. 
For, as I have noted in speaking formerly 19 upon this sub- 
ject, there were many severe laws made against bishops arbi- 
trarily removing themselves from one see to another. Though 
the translation of bishops was not absolutely and universally 
forbidden, because the Church had sometimes occasion for this 
expedient: yet care was taken that ambitious spirits should 
not move themselves at pleasure, but all translations were 
regularly to be made only by the authority, consent, and ap- 
probation of a provincial council, and to do otherwise was 
esteemed a crime of simoniacal ambition of the highest nature, 
as proceeding from avarice or love of pre-eminence, and using 
irregular methods, bribery, favour, and faction, to compass an 
end against the laws of the Church. And therefore the ancient 
Canons of Nice 2°, and Antioch2', and those called Apostolical 22, 


15 [Vid. Augustin. cont. Ep. Par- 
menian. (t. 9. p. 14 b.) Pecuniosis- 
sima et factiosissima foemina. Ep. | 

16 L. 1. pp. 41, 42. (pp. 19—22.) 
Tunc suffragio totius populi Ceci- 
hanus eligitur .... Lucilla....cum 
omnibus suis potens et factiosa foe- 
mina communioni miscere noluit. . 
Schisma igitur illo tempore confuse 
mulieris iracundia peperit. . 
est foras, et altare contra altare erec- 
tum est, et ordinatio illicite celebrata 
est: et Majorinus, qui lector in dia- 


. Exitum: 


conio Ceciliani fuerat, domesticus 
Lucille, ipsa suffragante, episcopus 
ordinatus est. 

17 Cont. Ep. Parmenian. 1. 1. ¢. 3. 
(t. 9. p. 14 ¢c.).... Quos ista factio 
[scil. Lucilla] convocaverat ad per- 
niciem Ceciliani, ut illo deposito 
alter eis ordinaretur? 

18 Scholastical History of Lay- 
Bap-tism, part 2. ch. 2 and 4. 

19 B. 6. ch. 4. 8 6. v. 2. p. 271. 

20 C. 15. (t. 2. p. 36d.) Διὰ τὸν 


πολὺν τάραχον καὶ Tas στάσεις τὰς 


§ 30. 


simony, §c. $25 


not only barely forbid and disallow this practice: but the 
Council of Sardica, finding by experience that simple prohi- 
bitions were not sufficient to repress it, and restrain aspiring 
men from it, backed her injunctions with the highest censures, 
making two very remarkable canons”, which run in these words: 
‘ That evil custom and pernicious corruption is by all means to 
be rooted out, that no bishop have hberty to remove himself 
from a lesser city to another. For the reason why he does 
this is plain; seeing we never find a bishop labouring to remove 
himself from a greater city to a less. Whence it is manifest 
that all such are inflamed with ardour of covetousness, and 
rather serve their ambition and vain glory, that they may 
seem to be invested with greater authority and power. Where- 
fore this sinister practice ought to be punished more severely.’ 


γινομένας ἔδοξε παντάπασι περιαιρε- 
θῆναι τὴν συνήθειαν τὴν παρὰ τὸν κα- 
νόνα εὑρεθεῖσαν ἔν τισι μέρεσιν" ὥστε 
ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν μὴ μεταβαίνειν, 
μήτε ἐπίσκοπον, μήτε πρεσβύτερον, 
μήτε διάκονον. Εἰ δέ τις, μετὰ τὸν 
τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης συνόδου ὅρον, 
τοιούτῳ τινὶ ἐπιχειρήσειεν, ἢ ἐπιδοίη 
ἑαυτὸν πράγματι τοιούτῳ" ἀκυρωθή- 
σεται ἐξ ἅπαντος τὸ κατασκεύασμα, 
καὶ ἀποκατασταθήσεται τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
7) ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἢ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐχει- 
ροτονήθη. 

21 C, 21. (ibid. P: 572 a.) ἜἘπί- 
σκοπὸν ἀπὸ παροικίας ἑτέρας εἰς ἑτέραν 
μὴ μεθίστασθαι, μ μήτε αὐθαιρέτως ἐ- 
πιρρίπτοντα ἑαυτὸν, μήτε ἀπὸ λαῶν 
ἐκβιαζόμενον, μήτε ὑπὸ ἐπισκόπων 
ἀναγκαζόμενον" μένειν δὲ εἰς ἣν ἐκλη- 
ρώθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξαρχῆς ἐκκλησί- 
αν, καὶ μὴ μεθίστασθαι αὐτῆς, κατὰ 
τὸν ἤδη πρότερον ἐξενεχθέντα ὅρον. 

22 C. 14. (al. 13.) Cotel. ἰς. 11. 
(v. I. p. 438.) Ἐπίσκοπον μὴ ἐξεῖναι 
καταλείψαντα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν 
ἑτέρᾳ ἐπιπηδᾷν, κἂν ὑπὸ πλειόνων ἀ- 
ναγκάζηται" εἰ μή τις εὔλογος αἰτία ἦ, 
ἡ τοῦτο βιαζομένη αὐτὸν ποιεῖν, ὡς 
πλεῖόν τι κέρδος δυναμένου αὐτοῦ τοῖς 
ἐκεῖσε λόγῳ εὐσεβείας συμβάλλεσθαι" 
καὶ τοῦτο δὲ, οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ 
κρίσει πολλῶν ἐπισκόπων, καὶ Tapa- 
κλήσει μεγίστῃ. 

25. C. 1. (t. 2. p. 628 b.) Οὐ το- 
σοῦτον ἡ φαύλη συνήθεια, ὅσον ἡ 
βλαβερωτάτη τῶν πραγμάτων δια- 


φθορὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν θεμελίων ἐστὶν 
ἐκριζωτέα" ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν ἐπισκόπων 
ἐξῆ ἀπὸ πόλεως μικρᾶς εἰς ἑτέραν πό- 
λιν μεθίστασθαι" ἡ γὰρ τῆς αἰτίας ταύ- 
τῆς πρόφασις φανερά ἐστι, δι ἣν τὰ 
τοιαῦτα ἐπιχειρεῖται. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ πώ- 
ποτε εὑρεθῆναι ἐπισκόπων δεδύνηται, 
ὃς ἀπὸ μείζονος πόλεως εἰς ἐλαχιστο- 
τέραν πόλιν ἐσπούδασε μεταστῆναι" 
ὅθεν συνέστηκε, διαπύρῳ πλεονεξίας 
τρόπῳ ὑπεκκαίεσθαι τοὺς τοιούτους, 
καὶ μᾶλλον τῇ ἀλαζονείᾳ δουλεύειν, 
ὅπως ἐξουσίαν δοκοῖεν μείζονα κε- 
κτῆσθαι. Ei πᾶσι τοίνυν τοῦτο ἀρέσ- 
κει, ὥστε τὴν τοιαύτην σκαιότητα αὐ- 
στηρότερον ἐκδικηθῆναι 5 3 ἡγοῦμαι γὰρ 
μηδὲ λαϊκῶν ἔχειν τοὺς τοιούτους χρῆ- 
ναι κοινωνίαν. Πάντες οἱ ἐπίσκοποι 
εἶπον" ᾿Αρέσκει macw.—C, 2. (ibid. 
Ρ. 628 6.) Ei δέ τις τοιοῦτος εὑρίσ- 
κοιτο μανιώδης ἢ ἢ τολμηρὸς, ὡς περὶ 
τῶν τοιούτων δόξαι τινὰ φέρειν παραί- 
τησιν, διαβεβαιούμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ πλή- 
θους ἑαυτὸν κεκομίσθαι γράμματα" δῆ- 
λόν ἐστιν, ὀλίγους τινὰς δεδυνῆσθαι 
μισθῷ καὶ τιμήματι διαφθαρέντας ἐν 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ στασιάζειν, ὡς δῆθεν ἀ- 
ξιοῦντας τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν ἐπίσκοπον" 
καθάπαξ οὖν τὰς ῥᾳδιουργίας τὰς τοι- 
αὐτας καὶ τέχνας κολαστέας εἶναι νο- 
μίζω, ὥστε μηδένα τοιοῦτον inde ἐν 
τῷ τέλει λαϊκῆς γοῦν ἀξιοῦσθαι κοι- 
, > , Oe ε , 
νωνίας" εἰ τοίνυν ἀρέσκει ἡ γνώμη 
αὕτη, ἀποκρίνασθε. ᾿Απεκρίναντο, Τὰ 
λεχθέντα ἤρεσεν. 


326 The great crimes, 


‘ And in my opinion,’ says Hosius, the president of the Council, 
‘such ought not to be allowed so much as lay-communion.’ 
The next canon adds, ‘That if any one be so vain or pre- 
sumptuous as to think to excuse himself in this matter, by 
saying that he received letters of invitation from the people, 
seeing it is possible some might be corrupted by bribes and 
rewards to raise a faction in the Church, and desire to have 
him for their bishop; — I think,’ says Hosius again, ‘these 
fraudulent arts and underhand practices ought to be un- 
doubtedly punished, so as that such an one should not be 
allowed eyen lay-communion at his last hour.’ And to this the 
Council readily agreed : which shows what apprehensions they 
had of this sort of simony, as most dangerous and pernicious 
to the Church. And it is worth remarking further, that 
whereas it might happen that such an ambitious bishop might, 
by the power of a faction, be able to maintain himself in his 
usurpation, in spite of all ecclesiastical censures: therefore in 
this case the third Council of Carthage?! gave orders, ‘ that 
recourse should be had to the secular magistrate against such 
a refractory and contumacious bishop, who would not submit to 
the milder sentence of an admonition; and that in such an 
exigence of absolute necessity the ruler of the province should 
be entreated, according to the directions of the imperial laws, 
to use his judicial authority to expel him out of the church, 
which he kept possession of by force, without giving any signs 
of acquiescing or amendment.’ 

Whether there were any imperial laws made with a direct 
view to this particular case, I cannot say: but it is certain 
there were general laws made by Gratian and Honorius?5, 
obliging all bishops, who were censured and deposed by any 
synod, to submit to the sentence of the synod, and not to make 


24 (Ὁ, 38. (ibid. p.1172d.) Neces- 
sitate ipsa cogente liberum sit nobis, 


25 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 2. de 
Episc. leg. 35, Honorii (t. 6. p. 72.) 


XVI. vi. 


rectorem provincia, secundum sta- 
tuta gloriosissimorum principum ad- 
versus illum adire, ut qui miti ad- 
monitioni acquiescere noluit, et emen- 
dare ilfcitum, auctoritate judiciaria 
protinus excludatur.— Vid. c. 43. 
(ibid. p. 1174 c.) Sunt enim plerique 
conspirantes, &c.—Vid. etiam Cod. 
Afric. cc. 48 et 53. (ibid. p. 1071 ἃ. 
et p. 1075 c.) 


Quicunque residentibus sacerdoti- 
bus fuerit episcopali loco detrusus 
et nomine, si aliquid vel contra cus- 
todiam, vel contra quietem publicam 
moliri fuerit deprehensus, rursusque 
sacerdotium petere, a quo videtur 
expulsus, procul ab ea urbe quam 
infecit, secundum legem dive me- 
moriz Gratiani, centum millibus vi-~ 
tam agat, &c. 


§ 30. vu. I. blasphemy, §c. 327 


any disturbance by endeavouring to keep or regain the sees 
out of which they were synodically expelled, under the penalty 
of being banished an hundred miles from the city, where they 
pretended to raise any such disturbance. This was the law of 
Honorius, which refers to a former law made by Gratian upon 
the same subject, which is also mentioned by Sulpicius Severus 
in his History 26 as enacted against the Priscillianists, though 
it be not now exstant in the Theodosian Code. And to these 
laws the African fathers might refer, when they order? ‘all 
such contumacious bishops to be expelled by the authority of 
the civil magistrate, according to the tenour of the imperial 
laws made in this behalf ;’ to which they refer also in other 
canons relating to the same purpose. 

Thus much of the several greater crimes against the First 
and Second Commandments, which made men liable to the 
penitential discipline and censures of the Church. 


CLEA. VIL. 


Of sins against the Third Commandment, blasphemy, profane 
swearing, perjury, and breach of vows. 


1. The greater sins against the Third Commandment, which The blas- 
chiefly brought men under public ecclesiastical censure, were στηλο το 
blasphemy, profane swearing, perjury, and breach of vows 
solemnly made to God. For all these reflected a particular 
dishonour upon his name. Blasphemy they distinguished into 
three sorts. First, the blasphemy of apostates and lapsers, 
whom the Heathen persecutors obliged not only to deny, but 
eurse Christ. Secondly, the blasphemy of heretics and other 
profane Christians. Thirdly, the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost. 

The first sort we find mentioned in Pliny 35, who, giving 
Trajan an account of some Christians who apostatized in the 
persecution in his time, tells him, ‘ they all worshipped his 


2% L, 2. p. 116. (p. 443.) Post 27 Cod. Afric. c. 93. al. 95. (t. 2. 
multa et foeda, Idacio supplicante, p.1107 6.) Κομμονιτώριον τοῖς ἀδελ- 
dicitur a Gratiano tum imperatore ois, κ. τ. X. 
rescriptum, quo universi heretici 23 L. x. Ep. 97. (p. 278.) Om- 
excedere non ecclesiis tantum aut nes et imaginem tuam, deorumque 
urbibus, sed extra omnes terras pro- simulacra venerati sunt, iique et 
pelli, jubebantur. Christo maledixerunt. 


328 The great crimes, XVI. vii. 
image, and the images of the gods, and also cursed Christ.’ 
And that this was the common way of ‘renouncing their re- 
ligion appears from the demand which the proconsul made to 
Polycarp29, and eee answer to it. He bid him reyile 
Christ: Λοιδόρησον τὸν Χριστόν : to whom Polycarp replied, 
‘These eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did 
me any harm: how then can I blaspheme my King and my 
Saviour?’ In the Epistles of Dionysius2°, bishop of Alex- 
andria, where he gives an account of the persecution that 
happened there, we find this was the usual way whereby the 
Heathen required the Christians to abjure their religion. They 
bid Metras, the martyr, say the atheistical words, which when 
he refused to do, they stoned him to death. So again they 
bid Apollonia 3] say the impious words, beating out her teeth, 
and threatening to burn her alive, if she refused to comply 
with them; and threatening all others with the same punish- 
ment, that would not say the blasphemous words. Now 
though Valesius thinks it difficult to tell what these impious, 
blasphemous, and atheistical words were, yet it seems plain 
enough they meant blaspheming Christ, which was the thing 
the Heathen insisted on, as their certain indication of Chris- 
tians renouncing their religion. And so Justin Martyr 53 says, 
when Barchocab, the ringleader of the Jewish rebellion under 
Adrian, persecuted the Christians, he threatened to inflict 
terrible punishments upon all that would not deny Christ and 
blaspheme him. This then being only a more solemn way of 
renouncing religion, by adding blasphemy to apostasy, all 
lapsers of this kind were deservedly reckoned among apostates, 


τὸ προάστειον, κατελιθοβόλησαν. 


29 Euseb. 1. 4. 6. 15. (v- 1.}. 167. 


17.) ᾿ΕἘγκειμένου δὲ τοῦ ἡγουμένου 
καὶ λέγοντες... Λοιδόρησον τὸν Χρισ- 
τόν" ἔφη ὁ ὁ Πολύκαρπος, ᾿Ογδοήκοντα 
καὶ && € ἔτη δουλεύω αὐτῷ, καὶ οὐδέν 
με ἠδίκησε" καὶ πῶς δύναμαι βλασ- 
φημῆσαι τὸν Βασιλέα μου, τὸν σώ- 
σαντά με; 

80 Euseb. 1. 6. c. 41. (ibid. p. 
304. 16.).... Πρεσβύτην Μητρᾶν o- 
νόματι συναρπάσαντες, καὶ κελεύσαν- 
τες ἄθεα λέγειν ῥήματα᾽ μὴ πειθόμε- 
νον, ξύλοις τε παίοντες τὸ σῶμα, καὶ 
καλάμοις ὀξέσι τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τοὺς 
ὀφθαλμοὺς κεντοῦντες, ἀγαγόντες εἰς 


31 Ibid. (p. 305. 1.) ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τὴν 
θαυμασιωτάτην τότε παρθένον πρεσ- 
βύτιν ᾿Απολλωνίαν διαλαβόντες, τοὺς 
μὲν ὀδόντας ἅπαντας, κόπτοντες τὰς 
σιαγόνας, ἐξήλασαν" πυρὰν δὲ νήσαν- 
τες πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ζῶσαν ἠπείλουν 
κατακαῦσαι, εἰ μὴ owen 
αὐτοῖς τὰ τῆς ἀσεβείας κηρύγματα". 
ἀεὶ καὶ πανταχοῦ πάντων κεκραγότων, 
εἰ μὴ τὰ δύσφημα τίς ἀνυμνοίη ῥήμα- 
τα, τοῦτον εὐθέως δεῖν σύρεσθαί τε 
καὶ πίμπρασθαι. 


32 Apol. 2. See before, ch. 6. s. 1. 
(Ρ. 271. n. 24.) 


g7 3. blasphemy, Sc. 829 


and accordingly punished with their punishment, to the highest 
degree of ecclesiastical censure. 

2. Another sort of blasphemers were such as made profession The blas- 
of the Christian religion, but yet either by impious doctrines Pee 
or profane discourses uttered blasphemous words against God, and pro- 
derogatory to his majesty and honour. In this sense heretics oe 
are commonly charged with blasphemy, and more especially 
those whose doctrines more immediately detracted from the 
excellences, properties, and actions of the Divine Nature. Thus 
Chrysostom*? terms those blasphemers who introduced fate in 
derogation to the providence of God: and Irenzus2*, those 
likewise who denied God to be the Creator of the world. And 
the Arians and Nestorians are generally charged with blas- 
phemy, impiety, and sacrilege®*, for denying the divinity of 
our Saviour and the incarnation of the Divine Nature. So that 
the same punishment as was inflicted upon heretics and sacri- 
legious persons was consequently the lot of this sort of blas- 
phemers. St. Chrysostom? joins blasphemers and fornicators 
together, as persons that were to be expelled from the Lord’s 


table. 


33 Hom. 2. de Fato et Provid. t. 1. 

p. 118. (inter Spuria, t. 2. p. 756 c.) 
τα εἰσὶν, οἱ τὸν Θεὸν κακῶς λέγον- 
Tes; οἱ τῇ σοφίᾳ τῆς προνοίας αὐτοῦ 
τὴν ἐκ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ἀταξίαν καὶ 
ἀνάγκην ἐπιτειχίζοντες. 

34 Preef. in 1. 4. (p. 275. 20.) Nunc 
autem, quoniam novissima sunt 
tempora, extenditur malum in ho- 
mines, non solum apostatas eos 
faciens, sed et blasphemos in plas- 
matorem instituit. 

35 Cod. Theod. 1. τό. tit. 5. de 
Hereticis, leg. 6., Theodosii. (t. 6. 
p. 118. ad summ.) Ariani sacrilegii 
venenum, &c.—Leg. 8. (ibid. p. 123.) 
Arianorum ...sacrilegi hujus dog- 
matis.—Hilarii i cee p. 144. 
[Ed. Veron. 1730. (p. 686.) Fragm. 
7.) Blasphemie Ari, &c.— Hilar. 
de Synodis. p. 104. (p. 464 c. 9.) 
Exemplum blasphemiz, &c. [Simi- 
lar terms (ibid. passim) such as 
Ariani furores, Arii perfidia, adul- 
terina doctrina, profanissima fides, 
blasphemi in Christi, &c. Ep.j|— 
Evagr. 1 r. c. 2. (v. 3. p. 252. 12.) 


He says further’, ‘Under the Mosaical economy the 


Νεστόριος 6 τῆς βλασφημίας καθη- 
yntns, κι τ.λ. 

36 Hom. 22. de Ira. t. I. p. 277. 
[juxt. Ed. Bened. ad Pop. Antioch. 
Hom. 20.] (t. 2. p. 203 a.) “Ὡς [do- 
περ, Savil.] γὰρ τὸν πορνεύοντα καὶ 
τὸν ,βλασφημοῦντα ἀμήχανον μετα- 
σχεῖν τῆς ἱερᾶς τραπέζης, κι τ.λ. 

37 Hom. 2. de Fato. t. 1. p. 811. 
(ibid. p. 756 a.) “O κακολογῶν πατέρα 
ἢ μητέρα, θανάτῳ τελευτάτω, bie 
ἐπὶ τῆς Παλαιᾶς 6 ὁ νόμος exetTo.... Th 
οὖν ἂν εἴποιμεν περὶ τῶν νῦν ἐν τῇ 
χάριτι, καὶ τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλη- 
θείᾳ, καὶ τῇ τοσαύτῃ γνώσει, οὐχὶ πα- 
τέρα καὶ μητέρα κακολογούντων, ἀλλ᾽ 
αὐτὸν τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν ; τίς τοὺς 
τοιούτους δέξεται τιμωρία; ποία τῷ 
μέτρῳ τῆς κακίας διαρκέσει κόλασις ; 
ποῖος δὲ πυρὸς ποταμὸς, ποῖος σκώληξ 
ἀτελεύτητος, ποῖον σκότος ἐξώτερον, 
ποῖα δεσμὰ, ποῖος βρυγμὸς, ποῖος 
κλαυθμός; πάντα ἐλάττω τὰ βασα- 
νιστήρια, καὶ τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα, 
τῆς οὕτω διακειμένης ψυχῆς, τῆς πρὸς 
τοσοῦτον κακίας κατενεχθείσης. inion 
Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ταύτης ἁμαρ- 


330 The great crimes, 


law was, Let him that curseth father or mother die the death. 
What shall we then say of those who in the time of grace and 
truth and such extraordinary knowledge not only curse father 
and mother, but blaspheme the God of the universe? All the 
punishments of this world and the next are not sufficient to 
chastise a soul that is arrived to this prodigious height of 
wickedness. For there is no sin greater than this, none equal 
to it. It is an addition to all other crimes, confounding all re- 
ligion, and drawing inexpiable punishment after it.’ 

Neither was it only this doctrinal blasphemy of heretics, 
proceeding from corrupt and vicious principles, that they thus 
treated both with their censures and invectives; but also all 
other blasphemies of profane Christians, whether occasioned 
by ill opinions fixed in the mind or other sudden emotions of a 
vicious temper. This we learn from Synesius’s way of pro- 
ceeding against Andronicus the oppressing governor of Ptole- 
mais. He admonished him for his other crimes while there 
was any hopes of making a just impression on him: but when 
he added blasphemy to all the rest, presuming to say ‘no man 
should escape his hands though he laid hold of the very foot of 
Christ,’ Synesius?9 thought he was no longer to be admonished, 
but to be cut off as a putrified member, and accordingly he 
proceeded to pronounce against him that famous excommuni- 
cation, which we have had so often occasion to mention 29 as 
the most formal sentence that occurs in ancient story. 

I only add that the civil laws set a particular mark upon 
this crime. For by the laws of Justinian‘! blasphemy is 
reckoned a capital offence, to be punished with death. And 
by the former laws, since heresy was reputed blasphemy against 
God, all the penalties inflicted on heretics, one of which was in 


XVI. vii. 


tla χείρων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ton, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
προσθήκη κακῶν τοῦτό ἐστιν, καὶ ὃ 
ἅπαντα συγχεῖ, καὶ ἀσύγνωστον ἔχει 
κόλασιν καὶ ἀφόρητον τιμωρίαν. 

39 Ep. 58. p. 199. See before, 
ch. 2. s.8. p. 87. n.72.—Conf. ἘΣ 
Constantinop. sub Menna, Act. 1. 
al. 5. (t.5. pp. 100, 5644.) [For nu- 
merous examples; and especially the 
latter part of the sentence of Mennas, 
the Patriarch, against Severus, Pe- 
trus, and Zonaras. (ibid. p. 255 c.) 


Διὰ ταῦτα τοιγαροῦν, κιτ. ὰ. Ep.] 

40 See it at length, ch. 2. 8. 8. 
p. 87. n. 72. 

41 Novel. 77. (t. 5. p. 361.)..-Si 
enim contra homines fact blasphe- 
miz impunite non relinquentur: 
multo magis qui ipsum Deum blas- 
phemant digni sunt supplicia susti- 
nere.... Praecipimus enim. ... per- 
manentes in preedictis illicitis et im- 
piis actibus ....comprehendere et 
ultimis subdere suppliciis. 


ὃ 2,3. 331 


some cases death also, must be supposed to be punishments 
awarded by law to this sort of blasphemers. 

8. Another sort of blasphemy was the blasphemy against The bias- 
the Holy Ghost, of which I must be a little more particular, ae 
because the sense of the Ancients concerning it is not very Holy Ghost. 


What no- 
commonly understood. 


blasphemy, Sc. 


tion the 
Some apply it to the great sin of lapsing into idolatry, ee 

and apostasy, and denying Christ in time of persecution. and what 

Thus Cyprian understands it when‘? he says, ‘ They who ΠΣ 

commit idolatry by the violence of persecution know their ficted omit. 

offence to be a very great crime, seeing our Lord and 

Judge has said, “" Whosoever shall confess me before men, 

him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. But 

he that denieth me, him will I also deny.” [Matth. 10, 32.] 

And again, * All sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven to the 

sons of men: but he that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost 

shall not have forgiveness; but is guilty of eternal sin.”’ 

[Mark 3, 28, 29.] St. Hilary‘? gives the same account of 

this blasphemy, making it to consist in denying Christ to be God. 

And therefore he also charges** the Arians and all other such 

heretics with this blasphemy, ‘because their doctrine robbed 

Christ of his divinity, and denied him to be of the same sub- 

stance with the Father, however they venerated him as God, and 

ascribed the name of God to him upon the account of his admira- 

ble works and glorious operations.’ Athanasius, and the author 

of the Questions to Antiochus under his name, are of the same 

opinion. Athanasius has a particular discourse upon this subject", 


42 Ep. to. [al. 16.] p. 36. (p. 195.) 
Summum enim delictum esse quod 
persecutio committi coegit; cum 
dixerit Dominus et Judex noster, 
Qui me confessus fuerit coram ho- 
minibus, et illum confitebor coram 
Patre meo qui in celis. Qui autem 
me negaverit, et ego illum negabo. 
Et iterum dixerit, Omnia peccata 
remittentur filiis hominum et blasphe- 
mie: qui autem blasphemaverit Spi- 
ritum Sanctum, non habebit remis- 
sam, sed reus est eterni peccati. 

43 In Matth. c. 31. p. 184. (t.1. 
Ρ. 802 b. n. 5.) Sciebat exterrendos, 
fugandos, negaturos: sed quia Spi- 
ritus blasphemia nec hic nec in 
zternum remittitur, metuebat ne se 


Deum abnegarent, quem cezsum et 
consputum et crucifixum essent con- 
templaturi. Que ratio servata in 
Petro est, qui cum negaturus esset, 
ita negavit, Non novi hominem. 

44 Ibid. c. 12. p. 164. (p. 731 d. 
n. 18.)....Christo aliqua deferre, 
negare que maxima sunt: venerari 
tanquam Deum, Dei communione 
spoliare, hee blasphemia Spiritus 
est: ut cum per admirationem 
operum tantorum Dei nomen detra- 
here non audeas, generositatem ejus, 
quam confiteri es coactus in nomine, 
abnegata paterne substantiz com- 
munione decerpas. 

45 In illud, Quicunque dixerit 
verbum, &c. t. 1. p. 971. [Ep. 4. ad 


332 The great crimes, 


where he notes the errors of Origen and Theognostus upon it, 
and delivers his own opinion in opposition to them. They 
said, ‘that all they who had received the gifts of the Holy 
Ghost in baptism, and afterward run into sin, committed the 
unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost.’ Which he refutes 
both from the practice of St. Paul, who received the incestuous 
Corinthian and other great sinners to pardon; and also from 
the practice of the Church in opposition to the Novatians. 
‘Why then,’ says he*®, ‘are we angry at Novatus for taking 
away repentance, and saying there is no pardon for those that 
sin after baptism? THis own opinion‘7 he delivers after this 
manner: ‘The Pharisees in our Saviour’s time, and the 
Arians in our days, running into the same madness, denied the 
real Word to be incarnate, and ascribed the works of the God- 
head to the Devil and his angels, and therefore justly undergo 
the punishment, which is due to this impiety, without remission. 
For they put the Devil in the place of God, and imagined the 
works of the living and true God to be nothing more than the 
works of the devils.’ ‘ Which was the same thing‘® as if they 
had said that the world was made by Beelzebub, that the sun 
arose at his command, and the stars in heaven moved by his 
direction. For as the one were the works of God, so were the 
other: and if the one were done by Beelzebub, so were the 
other also. For this reason Christ declared +9 their sin unpar- 
donable, and their punishment inevitable and eternal.’ In 
another place °° he says, ‘ They who spake against Christ, con- 


ΧΥ͂Ι. vu. 


Serapion. in Matth. 12, 24-31. nn. 8, 
Ὁ. το. 11, 12.] (t. 1. part. 2. pp. 560 e, 
seqq-) Περὶ δὲ οὗ γράφων ἐδήλωσας, 
Kermit 

46 (Ibid. (p. 563 b.) Τί δὲ καὶ Nov- 
aro μεμφόμεθα ἀναιροῦντι [τὴν] μετά- 
νοιαν, καὶ φάσκοντι μηδεμίαν συγγνώ- 
μην ἔχειν τοὺς μετὰ τὸ λουτρὸν a apap- 
τάνοντας ; εἰ διὰ τοὺς μετὰ τὸ λουτρὸν 
ἁμαρτάνοντας εἴρηται τὸ ῥητόν; Gri- 
schov. | 

47 Ubi supr. t. 1. P- 975: (ibid. 
p- 564 e.) ᾿Επειδὰν. . εἰς μανίαν 
τραπῶσι, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι 
ὄντα Λόγον τέλεον ᾿ἀρνήσωνται, ἢ καὶ 
τὰ τῆς Θεότητος ἔργα τῷ Διαβόλῳ 
καὶ τοῖς τούτου δαίμοσιν ἀναφέρωσιν, 
εἰκότως ἀσύγγνωστον ἔχουσι τὴν ἐκ 
τῆς τοιαύτης ἀσεβείας ἐπιτιμίαν τόν 


τε yap Διάβολον εἰς Θεὸν ἐλογίσαντο, 
καὶ τὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ ὄντως ὄντα Θεὸν, 
οὐδὲν πλέον ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις ἔχειν τῶν 
δαιμόνων ἡγήσαντο. κ. τ. Xd. 

43 Ibid. (p. 565 b.) Ἶσον γὰρ ἦν 
αὐτοὺς τολμᾷν καὶ εἰπεῖν, ὁρῶντας τὴν 
τοῦ κόσμου τάξιν, καὶ τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν 
πρόνοιαν, ὅτι καὶ ἡ κτίσις ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Βεελζεβοὺλ γέγονε" καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ὑ ὑπα- 
κούων τῷ Διαβόλῳ ἀνατέλλει, καὶ δι᾽ 
αὐτὸν περιπολεῖ τὰ ἄστρα ἐν τῷ οὐ- 
ρανῷ" καὶ “γὰρ ὥσπερ ταῦτα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
οὕτω κἀκεῖνα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἢ ἦν ἔργα. 

49 Ibid. (p. 595 b.) Ὅθεν ἀκολού- 
θως ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀσύγγνωστα καὶ ἄφυκτα 
βλασφημεῖν αὐτοὺς ἀπεφήνατο. 

50 De Communi Essentia Trium 
Personarum. t. I. p. 237. (t. 2. p. 20 
c,d.) Οἱ μὲν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν 


§ 3- 


blasphemy. §&c. 333 


sidering him only as the Son of man, were pardonable, because 
in the beginning of the Gospel the world looked upon him only 
as a prophet, not as God, but as the son of man: but they who 
blasphemed his divinity after his works had demonstrated him 
to be God had no forgiveness, so long as they continued in this 
blasphemy: but if they repented they might obtain pardon: 
for there is no sin unpardonable with God to them who truly 
and worthily repent.’ And the same is said by the author of 
the Questions to Antiochus>! under his name. St. Ambrose»? 
also defines this sin to be denying the divinity of Christ: 
‘ Whoever does not confess God in Christ, and Christ to be of 
God and in God, deserves no pardon.’ 

Some again make it to consist in denying the divinity of 
the Holy Ghost. Thus Epiphanius®? brings the charge against 
the Pneumatomachi, or Macedonian heretics, whose error con- 
sisted particularly in opposing the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, 
and making him a mere creature. He says, ‘ All heretics 
blaspheme and deny the truth, some more, some less: (as these 
Pneumatomachi did:) blaspheming the Lord and the Holy 
Spirit, and having pardon of sins neither in this world nor the 


τῷ Υἱῷ τοῦ. ᾿Ανθρώπου, προσκόπτοντες, 
προφήτην “αὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Θεόν εἶναι 
ἐνόμιζον" οἷς καὶ συγγνώμην ἔδωκεν... 
Διὸ καί φησιν ὁ Χριστός" Ὅτι ὃς ἐὰν 
εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ τοῦ ᾿Ανθρώ- 
που, εἴτ᾽ οὖν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἀφε- 
θήσεται αὐτῷ. . Οἱ δὲ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα 
τὸ “Aytoy, εἴτ᾽ οὖν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
θεότητα βλασφημήσαντες, καὶ “λέγον- 
τες, ὅτι, ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ, τῷ ἄρχοντι 
τῶν δαιμονίων, ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια" 
τούτοις, φησὶν, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται, οὐδὲ 
ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι. 
Καὶ πάλιν σημειώσασθαι χρὴ, ὅτι οὐκ 
εἶπεν ὁ Χριστὸς, Τῷ βλασφημήσαντι 
καὶ μετανοοῦντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται" ἀλλὰ, 
τῷ βλασφημοῦντι, εἴτ᾽ οὖν, τῷ ἐν τῇ 
βλασφημίᾳ ἐ ἐπιμένοντι" ἐπειδήπερ οὐκ 
ἔστιν ἁμαρτία ἀσυγχώρητος παρὰ τῷ 
Θεῷ ἐν τοῖς γνησίως καὶ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν 
μετανοοῦσιν. 

“1 Quest. 71. [8]. 69. t. 2. p. 358. 
{Ὁ 2. p. 231 b.).. Kai τοῖς μὲν ἅμαρ- 
τωλοῖς πολλάκις μακροχρονίαν χαρί- 
ζεται, ἀφορμὴν αὐτοῖς διδοὺς πρὸς 
μετάνοιαν. 


$2 In Luc. 1. 7. Ὁ, 12. [v. 9, 10.] 


(t.5. p. 108. (t. 1. p. 1438 d. n. 120.) 

- Quicunque spiritus non confi- 
tetur in Christo Deum, et ex Deo et 
in Deo Christum, veniam non me- 
retur. 

53 Her. 74. Pneumatom. n. 14. 
(Ὁ. I. p. 903 6.) ᾿Αρκετῶς yap ἐν πᾶσι 
αἱρέσεσι πολλὰ εἰπόντες τὰς πάσας ἐν 
Θεοῦ δυνάμει ἡμεῖς οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ἀνε- 
τρέψαμεν, καὶ ἀπεδείξαμεν ἀλλοτρίας 
οὔσας τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἑκάστην αὖ- 
τῶν βλασφημοῦσαν, καὶ ἀρνουμένην 
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, κἄν τε ἐν βραχεῖ, κἄν τε 
ἐν πολλῷ" ὡς καὶ οὗτοι [Πνευματο- 
paxor | μάτην εἰς τὸν Κύριον βλασφη- 
μοῦντες, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἽΛγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ 
μὴ ἔχοντες μήτε ἐνταῦθα, μήτε ἐν τῷ 
μέλλοντι αἰῶνι, κατὰ τὰ ὑπὸ Κυρίου 
εἰρημένα, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, διὰ τὴν εἰς 
τὸ ἽΛγιον Πνεῦμα βλασφημίαν, κατα- 
πατηθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς “ἀληθείας 
δίκην κεράστου δεινοῦ μονοκέρωτος..--- 
[Conf. Athanas. Ep. ad African. 
n. 11. (t. τ. part.2. p. 718 e.) Αὕτη 
[ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδος) καὶ rods βλασ- 
φημοῦντας, κιτ.λ. Ep 


334 The great crimes, XVI. vii. 


world to come.’ He shows also how they were not pardoned 
in this world, because their doctrine was condemned by the 
Church in the Council of Nice, and their persons anathema- 
tized or cast out of the communion of the Church. But then 
as they might be admitted to communion again upon their re- 
pentance, so we must suppose he means their sin was capable 
of pardon in the next world upon the same condition, and only 
unpardonable upon the supposition of obstinacy and continu- 
ance in it without repentance. St. Ambrose also in his Treatise 
of the Holy Ghost**, writing against the same heretics, charges 
them as guilty of this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost for 
denying the divinity of his Person. And the same charge is 
brought against them by Philastrius>°, when he says, the Lord 
declared ‘that all sins should be forgiven unto men beside the 
blasphemy against the heavenly essence of the Holy Spirit.’ 
Philastrius*® brings the charge in general against all heretics, 
as blasphemers of the Holy Ghost. And St. Ambrose? does 
the same, but then he does not assert the sin to be absolutely 
unpardonable, but exhorts them to return to the Church, with 


hopes of obtaining mercy and forgiveness. 
Others place this sin in a perverse and malicious ascribing 


54 De Spirit. Sanct. 1.1. c. 3. (t. 2. 
p- 611 c. n. 54.) Qui blasphemaverit 
in Filium Hominis, remittetur ei: qui 
autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum 
Sanctum, nec hic nec in futurum re- 
mittetur ei: diligenter adverte. Num- 

uid alia est offensa Filii, alia Spiritus 
Sancti? Sicut enim una dignitas, 
sic una injuria. Sed si quis, cor- 
poris specie deceptus humani, re- 
missius aliquid sentit de Christi 
carne, quam dignum est (neque 
enim vilis nobis debet videri, que 
aula virtutis, fructus est Virginis) 
habet culpam; non est tamen ex- 
clusus a venia, quam fide possit ad- 
sciscere. Si quis vero Sancti Spiritus 
dignitatem, majestatem, et potesta- 
tem abneget sempiternam, et putet 
non in Spiritu Dei ejici demonia, 
sed in Beelzebub; non potest ibi 
exoratio esse venie, ubi sacrilegii 
plenitudo est; quia qui Spiritum 
negavit, et Deum Patrem negavit et 
Filium; quoniam idem est Spiritus 


Dei, qui Spiritus est Christi. 

55 De Heres. c. 20. ap. Bibl. 
Patr. t. 4. p. 17. [al. 39. Semiariani. | 
(ap. Galland. t. 7. p. 491 a.)... Con- 
cedi omnia peccata hominibus pre- 
ter blasphemiam de divini et ado- 
randi Spiritus essentia. 

56 Heres. Rhetorii. (ibid. p. 495 
e.) Photinus ergo laudandus est 
hereticus, qui Christum Dominum 
negat esse ante secula cum Patre ; 
et omnis heresis, que blasphemat 
aut in Patrem, aut in Filium, aut in 
Spiritum. 

57 De Peenitent. 1. 2. c. 4. (t. 2. 
p- 421 6. ἢ. 24.) Eos quoque asserit 
diabolico uti spiritu, qui separarent 
ecclesiam Dei [8]. Domini]: ut om- 
nium temporum hereticos et schis- 
maticos comprehenderet, quibus in- 
dulgentiam negat.—Ibid. paul. post. 
(p. 422 b. n. 26).... Revertimini ad 
ecclesiam, si qui vos separastis im- 
pie; omnibus enim conversis polli- 
cetur veniam, &c. 


335 


the works of the Holy Spirit to the power of the Devil. And 
some of these suppose the malignity of it to consist in doing 
this against knowledge and manifest convictions of conscience, 
which renders them self-condemned, and their sin simply and 
absolutely unpardonable. The author of the Questions upon 
the Old and New Testament, under the name of St. Austin 58, 
who is supposed to be one Hilary, a Roman deacon, expressly 
delivers his opinion after this manner. ‘ The Jews,’ says he, 
‘did not sin against the Holy Ghost out of ignorance, but 
maliciousness. For they knew the works which our Saviour 
did to be the true works of God: but to divert the people 
from believing on him, they pretended, against their own 
knowledge and conscience, to say, that they were the works 
of the prince of devils. Upon which account our Lord said to 
them, “ Ye have the key of knowledge, and ye neither enter 
yourselves, nor suffer others to enter.” That sentence then 
was pronounced against the malignant, for whom there is no 
remedy to be found to bring them to salvation. For this is 
the greatest of all sins, pretending that to be false which men 
know to be true, and denying the wonderful works of God 
against their own knowledge and conscience.’ 

But in two things this author is singular. 
the Jews acted against knowledge and conscience: for St. 
Austin *? expressly says, ‘ they did it in ignorance, by that 
blindness which happened to Israel in part, till the fulness of 
the Gentiles should come in.’ And it seems evident from those 
words of St. Peter in his sermon to them, (Acts 3, 17.) “1 wot, 


blasphemy, §c. 


First, in saying 


58 Quest. in Vet. et Nov. Test. 
102. t. 4. p. 452. (t. 3. append. p. 
6 a.) Non enim errore peccaverunt 
In Spiritum Sanctum, sed malevo- 
lentia. Scientes enim prudentesque 
opera, que viderunt [4]. videbant] 
in gestis Salvatoris Dei esse, ut 
populum a fide ejus averterent, hc 
simulabant esse principis demonio- 
rum.... Hee ergo sententia contra 
malevolos prolata est, quibus reme- 
dium inveniri non potest ut salven- 
tur. Nihil enim hoc crimine gra- 
vius est; fingit enim falsum esse, 
uod scit esse verum.... Non ergo 
ignum est, istis peccatum hoc um- 


quam debere remitti, qui, conscientia 
sua teste, Deo, cui se devotos dice- 
bant, ausi sunt repugnare. 

59 Expos. in Rom. p. 365. t. 4. 
(t. 3. part. 2. p. 938d.) Quo loco 
queeri potest, utrum scirent Judei 
per Spiritum Sanctum operari Do- 
minum, quando eum in principe 
demoniorum demonia_ excludere 
blasphemabant? Miror autem, quo- 
modo possent in illo Spiritum Sanc- 
tum cognoscere, cum ipsum Domi- 
num Filium Dei esse nescirent: in 
illa scilicet cecitate, que ex parte 
in Israel facta est, donec plenitudo 
Gentium intraret. 


336 XVI. vii. 


The great crimes, 


” 


brethren, that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. 
Secondly, in that he makes their sin simply and absolutely un- 
pardonable, which the Ancients generally do not, save only 
when it is accompanied with insuperable obstinacy and final 
impenitency, which in the nature of the thing can have no 
pardon. For all others among the Ancients suppose it possible 
for men to repent of this sin, and thereby make themselves 
capable of pardon, though with great difficulty, and that the 
unpardonableness of it arises from men’s own obstinacy and 
impenitency only, which makes them liable to punishment both 
in this world and the world to come. Thus St. Chrysostom 
delivers his opinion in his Comment © upon the words of our 
Saviour: ‘ Is there no remission for those who repent of their 
blasphemy against the Spirit? How can this be said with 


reason ? 
of it. 


therefore the meaning of it? 
pardon than all others. 


For we know it was forgiven to some that repented 
Many of those Jews which blasphemed the Holy Ghost 
did afterwards believe, and all was forgiven them. 


What is 


That it is a sin less capable of 


And unless they repented of it (so 


Anianus°! translates it) they should be punished in both worlds, 


60 Hom. 42. [Bened. 41. al. 42.] 
in Matth. 12. p. 391. (t. 7. p 448 6.) 
Ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος Phaognua οὐκ 
ἀφεθήσεται, [οὐδὲ] μετανοοῦσι:: Καὶ 
πῶς ἂν ἔχοι τοῦτο λόγον : καὶ γὰρ καὶ 
αὐτὴ ἀφέθη μετανοήσασι" πολλοὶ “γοῦν 
τῶν ταῦτα εἰρηκότων. ἐπίστευσαν ὕστε- 
ρον, καὶ πάντα αὐτοῖς ἀφέθη. Τί οὖν 
ἐστιν ὅ φησιν: ὅτι ὑπὲρ πάντα αὕτη 
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀσύγγνωστος. Τί δήποτε: 
ὅτι αὐτὸν μὲν ἠγνόουν, ὅστίς ποτε ἦν" 
τοῦ δὲ Πνεύματος ἱκανὴν εἰλήφασι 
πεῖραν" καὶ γὰρ καὶ οἱ Προφῆται δι 
αὐτοῦ ἐφθέγξαντο, ἅπερ ἐφθέγξαντο, 
καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ ἐν τῇ “παλαιᾷ με- 
γίστην περὶ αὐτοῦ εἶχεν ἔννοιαν. Ὃ 
τοίνυν λέγει, τοῦτό ἐστιν" Ἔστω, ἐμοὶ 
προσπταίετε διὰ τὴν “σάρκα τὴν περι- 
κειμένην" μὴ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος 
ἔχετε εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἀγνοοῦμεν « αὐτό: διὰ 
δὴ τοῦτο ἀσύγγνωστος ὑμῖν ἔσται ἡ 
βλασφημία, καὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἐκεῖ δώ- 
σετε δίκην.. . Ei yap. καὶ ἐμὲ λέγετε 
ἀγνοεῖν" οὐ δήπου κἀκεῖνο ἀγνοεῖτε, 
καὶ ὅτι τὸ δαίμονας ἐκβάλλειν καὶ 
ἰάσεις ἐπιτελεῖν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματός 


> » > »” 2k, ὦ , 
ἐστιν ἔργον. οὐκ ἄρα ἐμὲ ὑβρίζετε 
΄, > \ ‘ A “ ν΄ e 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Δγιον 
΄΄ iz 
διὸ καὶ ἀπαραίτητος ὑμῖν 7 δίκη καὶ 
ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἐκεῖ. Καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀν- 
θρώπων, οἱ μὲν καὶ ἐνταῦθα κολάζον- 
Tat καὶ ἐκεῖ" οἱ δὲ ἐνταῦθα μόνον" 
[οἱ δὲ ἐκεῖ μόνον" Savil. et Bened. } 
οἱ δὲ οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα, οὐδὲ ἐ ἐκεῖ' ἐνταῦθα 
μὲν καὶ ἐκεῖ, ὡς οὗτοι αὐτοί" καὶ γὰρ 
καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἔδοσαν δίκην, ἡ ἡνίκα ἔπα- 
θον τὰ ἀνήκεστα ἐκεῖνα τῆς ὧδε πόλεως 
’ ΄ 
ἁλούσης" καὶ ἐκεῖ χαλεπωτάτην ὑπο- 
μενοῦσιν, ὡς οἱ Σοδόμων πολῖται, ὡς 
-» ΄, » = ‘ , c iq 
€repot πολλοί ἐκεῖ δὲ μόνον, as ὁ 
’ 2.9 , ‘ > ‘ 
πλούσιος 6 ἀποτηγανιζόμενος καὶ οὐδὲ 
- 
σταγόνος κύριος ὦν᾽ ἐνταῦθα δὲ, ὡς ὁ 
πεπορνευκὼς παρὰ Κορινθίοις" οὔτε δὲ 
ἐνταῦθα, οὔτε ἐκεῖ, ὡς οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι, 
ὡς οἱ Προφῆται, ὡς ὁ μακάριος Ἰώβ. 
> 
ov yap δὴ κολάσεως ἦν, ἅπερ ἔπασχον, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀγώνων καὶ παλαισμάτων. 


61 [Vid. ap. Ed. Ducean. Paris. 
1617. (t. 7. p. 391 e. sub im. pag.) 
oe Quapropter, nisi peenitentiam 
agatis, nec in futura punitionem ef- 
fugietis—The Greek text says no- 


δ 3. 


337 


and have pardon in neither.’ Which he observes to be the 
difference between this kind of sinners and many others. ‘ For 
some sinners are punished both in this world and the next; 
others only in this world; others only in the next; others 
neither in this world nor the next.’ He gives examples of all 
these. ‘ Some are punished both here and hereafter, as these 
blaspheming Jews: for they suffered vengeance here in the 
great calamities which befel them in the destruction of Jeru- 
salem: and hereafter they must undergo intolerable torments, 
as the men of Sodom and many others. Some suffer only in 
the next world, as the rich man who is tormented in flames, 
and not master of so much as a drop of water to cool his 
tongue. Some suffer only in this world, as he that committed 
fornication among the Corinthians: and others neither in this 
world, nor the next, as the Apostles, and Prophets, and holy 
Job, and such like. For their passions were not punishments 
for their sins, but only exercises and combats to crown them 
with victory.’ Now he supposes that blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost is a sin of the first kind; that is, one of those for 
which men, if they do not timely repent of it, shall suffer both 
here and hereafter, as the men of Sodom; in which respect it 
is said never to have forgiveness, neither in this world nor the 
next ®!, because it is punished in both. 

Victor of Antioch, who was contemporary with St. Chry- 
sostom, gives the same account of the unpardonableness of this 
sin. He says ®,* When our Saviour discourses of the sin of 


blasphemy, §c. 


thing of repentance: but does the 
translator consider it implied in the 
term ἀπαραίτητος, and is he un- 
reasonable in doing so?—This set 
of Duczus’s edition is dated thus: 
the first five volumes, Paris, 1621 ; 
the sixth volume, Paris, 1624; the 
seventh, 1617: and vols. 8, 9, 10, 
Paris, 1603; in all ten tomes. I 
believe the explanation to be that 
Duczus’s edition was not carried 
beyond the sixth volume in the year 
1624; sets of the entire work being 
made up by the addition of four 
volumes more of different dates, 
e bibliopolio Commeliniano beige 
I , or from a reprint in 1603. 
πο whet I have said before, 
b. 13. ch. 6. s. 1. Vv. 4. p. 440. π. 2. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


Comp. Walch, Biblioth. Patrist. ch. 
2. 8. 16. Jenz, 1834. p. 135. Ep.] 

61 [See also Chrysostom’s Third 
Homily on Lazarus, (t. 5. p. 69, of 
the Editio Duczeana,) where he uses 
the same distinction of sins punish- 
ed only in this world, or only in the 
next, or else, as the sins of Sodom, 
punished in both. Ed. Bened. (t. 
I. p. 744 ¢. n. 6.) Ὅτι δέ τινες καὶ 
ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἐκεῖ κολάζονται, ὅταν μὴ 
τὴν ἀξίαν τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἁμαρτη- 
μάτων ἐνταῦθα ἀπολάβωσι τιμωρίαν, 
x. t.A. Ep.) 

62 In Marc. 3. ap. Bibl. Patr. 
Paris. 1654. t. 1. p. 411. (ap. Bibl. 
Max. t. 4. p. 377 h. 5.).... Cum 
de blasphemiz peccato Salvator [8]. 
Servator ] noster disserit, neque con- 


Z 


338 The great crimes, XVI, vii. 


blasphemy, he neither determines blasphemy against the Son 
to be absolutely remissible, nor the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost to be simply irremissible; as if there was no place of 
repentance left for such blasphemers, when they were disposed 
to return to a sober mind: but only by drawing a comparison 
betwixt the one and the other, he shows, that the blasphemy 
against the Son ought to be esteemed the lesser of the two, 
because it seems to be levelled against him only as man.’ 

Now from what has hitherto been discoursed, it 1s easy to 
conceive after what manner the discipline of the Church was 
exercised upon such sort of blasphemers. For, first, if all 
apostates, and idolaters, and such as denied Christ, or blas- 
phemed him, or denied his divinity, or the divinity of the Holy 
Ghost, and such as fell into heresy or schism, were reputed in 
some measure to blaspheme the Holy Ghost; then the same 
punishments that were inflicted on all such offenders, must 
consequently be reckoned the punishments of those that blas- 
phemed the Holy Ghost. And since we have seen those 
punishments under those respective heads before, [in several 
sections of the fourth and sixth chapters respectively, | we need 
inquire no further after them in this place; but only observe, 
secondly, that the Ancients, as many at least as went upon this 
supposition, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was 
committed in these several crimes, could not imagine it to be a 
sin simply and absolutely incapable of pardon: because they 
did not shut the door of repentance to any such offenders, or 
reckon them altogether reprobate and desperate, but invited 
them to repent, and prayed for their conversion, and received 
them again to peace and communion upon their humble con- 
fession and evidences of a true repentance. Which argues, 
that they did not believe the sin against the Holy Ghost to be 
altogether unpardonable, but only to the impenitent; since 
they granted pardon to the penitent in this world, and gaye 
them hopes of obtaining pardon from God in the world to come. 


vicium in Filium absolute remissibile, 
neque blasphemiam rursus in Spiri- 
tum Sanctum irremissibile simplici- 
ter definire vult: quasi nullus pror- 
sus ejusmodi blasphemis, dummodo 
ad sanam mentem redire in animum 
induxerint, peenitentiz locus relictus 


sit; verum, comparatione quadam 
inter hanc et illam facta, indicat 
eam, que cadit in Filium, tanquam 
uz in hominem proxime ferri vi- 
eatur, multo minorem censeri illa, 
quz temerario nefarioque ausu ef- 
funditur in Spiritum Sanctum. 


§ 3. 


blasphemy, δ᾽ Ὁ. 339 


It is true, indeed, St. Austin and several others in the Latin 
Church seem to say, that this sin is altogether unpardonable, 
both in this world and the next. But if we rightly take their 
meaning, they differ not at all from the former. For they sup- 
pose that no man perfectly commits the sin against the Holy 
Ghost, but he that finally dies obdurate, and in resistance to 
all the gracious motions and operations of the Holy Spirit to 
the end of his days: in which case, it is but natural to conclude 
from the nature of the thing that such men can have no pardon 
for their sin, neither in this world nor the world to come: not 
because any thing they do in their lifetime makes it an unpar- 
donable sin in itself; but because they wilfully continue impe- 
nitent to the last, and so make it impossible and impracticable, 
upon the principles of the Gospel, to obtain pardon either of 
God or his Church, in this world or the world to come: since 
the covenant of grace and pardon only respects those who 
embrace it in this life, and not such as put off repentance 
to another world, where they will repent without remedy, 
or, in the Apostle’s words, “find no room for repentance, (or 
change of God’s purposes,) though they seek it carefully with 
tears.” 

In this sense Fulgentius understands our Saviour’s words as 
menacing punishment to those that obstinately continue in their 
wickedness, and let judgment overtake them in their sins. He 
says®, ‘ Repentance is of advantage to every man in this life, 
whatever time he truly turns to God, quamlibet iniquus, 
quamlibet annosus, although he be the greatest of sinners, 


63 De Fide ad Petrum, c. 3. ἢ. 39. 
(int. Oper. Augustin. t. 6. append. 
P. 26 e.) Proinde omni homini in 

ac vita esse potest utilis pceniten- 
tia, quam quocunque tempore homo 
egerit, quamlibet iniquus, quamlibet 
annosus, si toto corde renuntiaverit 
peccatis preteritis, et pro eis in 
conspectu Dei non solum corporis, 
sed etiam cordis lacrymas fuderit, 
et malorum operum maculas bonis 
operibus diluere curaverit, omnium 
peccatorum suorum indulgentiam 
mox habebit.—Item, ἢ. 40. (f.) Ve- 
runtamen nullus hominum debet 
sub spe misericordie Dei in suis 
diutius remanere peccatis; cum 


etiam in ipso corpore nemo velit 
sub spe future salutis diutius egro- 
tare. Tales enim, qui ab iniquitati- 
bus suis recedere negligunt, et sibi 
de Deo indulgentiam repromittunt, 
nonnunguam ita preveniantur re- 
pnts De furore, ut nec conver- 
sionis tempus, nec beneficium re- 
missionis inveniant.—Item, n. 41. 
(p. 27 a.) Sicut enim misericordia 
suscipit absolvitque conversos, ita 
justitia repellet et puniet obduratos. 
Hi sunt, qui, peccantes in Spiritum 
Sanctum, neque in hoc seculo ne- 
que in futuro remissionem accipient 
peccatorum. 


z2 


340 XVI. vii. 


The great crimes, 


although he be grown old in sin: but if he continue obdurate 
to the last, there is no mercy for him. For as mercy will re- 
ceive and absolve those that are converted, so justice will repel 
and punish the obdurate. For they are those who sin against 
the Holy Ghost, and shall not have remission of sins either in 
this world or the world to come.’ The author of the Book of 
True and False Repentance®, under the name of St. Austin, 
says the same: ‘That they only sin against the Holy Ghost 
who continue impenitent unto death. For the Holy Spirit is 
love, who gives his grace to us as an earnest. He therefore 
that sins, and desires not to recover his grace, nor ever after 
is concerned to be loved by him, nor seeks to him from whom 
he received his earnest, sins against the Holy Spirit, and shall 
never obtain pardon, either living or after death: but no one 
sins against the Holy Spirit that flies unto him for mercy.’ 
And therefore he says, ‘Our Saviour’s words to the Jews were 
rather an admonition to them not to continue in sin, because if 
they went on as they had begun, their blasphemy would lead 
them unto death. Bacchiarius®, an African writer about the 
time of St. Austin, explains himself after the same manner. He 
says, ‘This sin consists in such a despair of God’s mercy, as 
makes men give over all hopes of attaining by the power of 
God to that state and condition from which they are fallen. 
And so consequently go on in sin without repentance to their 
lives’ end.’ 

St. Austin © speaks often of this crime, and he places it ina 
continual resistance of the motions and graces of the Holy 
Spirit, by an invincible hardness of heart and final impenitency 


to the end of a man’s days. 


64 C, 4. t. 4. (ibid. p. 234 b.) Sed 
soli peccant in Spiritum Sanctum, 
qui impeenitentes exsistunt usque 
ad mortem. Spiritus enim Sanctus, 
caritas est Divinitatis, amor est Ge- 
nitoris et genite Veritatis, qui suam 
gratiam nobis tribuit sui ipsius ar- 
rham. Qui igitur peccat, et gratiam 
suam recuperare non amat, et nun- 
quam curat ab eo diligi, qui totus 
est amor et caritas, nec ad eum ten- 
dit unde sumpsit arrham, in Spiritum 
Sanctum peccat, et nunquam post 
mortem, sicut nec vivens conseque- 


‘Some,’ says he, ‘ placed it in 


tur veniam: sicque nullus peccat in 
Spiritum Sanctum, qui fugit ad 
ipsum. 

65 Ep. de Recipiend. Laps. ap. 
Bibl. Patr. ut supra, t. 3. p. 133. 
(ap. Galland. [s. 22.] t. 9. p. 198 b.) 
Ego autem dico hoc ipsum, despe- 
rare de Domino in Spiritum esse 
peccare, quia Dominus Spiritus est ; 
et ideo non remittitur ei, quia non 
crediderit Dominum reddere sibi 
posse que [al. quod] perdidit. 

66 Serm. 11. de Verb. Dom. c. 4. 
[al. Serm. 71.] (t. 5. p. 387 d.) 


§ 3. 


blasphemy, δ᾽. 341 


the commission of mortal sins after baptism, and after having 
received the Holy Ghost, as doing despite to so great a gift of 
Christ, by falling into such sins as adultery, murder, apostasy, 
or separation from the Catholic Church.’ But this, he thinks, 
cannot be the meaning of it; because ‘the Church allows room 
for repentance for all sins, and corrects heretics only with this 
intent, that they may repent.’ He says further 67, ‘ that it con- 
sists not in denying the divinity or person of the Holy Ghost, 
or believing him to be a creature, unless men persist in these 
errors to the end of their days. For many Catholic Christians 
were once Jews, or Pagans, or heretics, such as the Arians, 
Eunomians, Macedonians, Sabellians, Patripassians, and Photi- 
nians, who all deny either the divinity or the personality of 
the Holy Ghost. And if all these, who speak against the Holy 
Ghost, have no forgiveness, in vain do we promise or preach 
to men that they should turn to God, and obtain peace and 


Nonnullis videtur eos tantummodo 
peccare in Spiritum Sanctum, qui, 
lavacro regenerationis abluti in ec- 
clesia, et accepto Spiritu Sancto, 
velut tanto postea dono Salvatoris 
ingrati, mortifero aliquo peccato se 
immerserint: qualia sunt vel adul- 
teria, vel homicidia, vel ipsa disces- 
510, sive omni modo a nomine Chri- 
stiano, sive a Catholica ecclesia. 
Sed iste sensus unde probari possit, 
ignoro : cum et pcenitentiz quorum- 
que criminum locus in ecclesia non 
negetur; et ipsos hzreticos ad hoc 
utique corripiendos dicat Apostolus ; 
Ne forte det illis Deus penitentiam 
ad cognoscendam veritatem, et resi- 
piscant a Diaboli laqueis, a quo cap- 
tivi tenentur secundum ipsius volun- 
tatem. 

67 Ibid. c. 3. (p. 386 g, ἢ. p. 387.) 
..- Quidam heretici ipsum omnino 
Spiritum Sanctum vel non creato- 
rem, sed creaturam esse contendunt ; 
sicut Ariani et Eunomiani et Mace- 
doniani; vel eum prorsus ita negant, 
ut ipsum Deum negent esse ‘T'rini- 
tatem, sed tantummodo esse Deum 
Patrem asseverant, et ipsum ali- 
quando vocari Filium, aliquando 
vocari Spiritum Sanctum; sicut Sa- 
belliani, quos quidam Patripassianos 


vocant, ideo quia Patrem perhibent 
[esse] passum: cujus cum negant 
esse aliquem Filium, sine dubio ne- 
gant esse Spiritum Sanctum. Pho- 
tiniani quoque Patrem solum esse 
dicentes Deum, Filium vero non 
nisi hominem, negant omnino esse 
tertiam personam Spiritum Sanctum. 
Manifestum est igitur, et a Paganis, 
et a Judeis, et ab heereticis blas- 
phemari Spiritum Sanctum. Nun- 
quidnam ergo deserendi sunt, et 
sine ulla spe deputandi, quoniam 
fixa sententia est, Qui verbum dizxerit 
contra Spiritum Sanctum, non ei di- 
mitti, neque in hoc seculo, neque in 
futuro; et illi soli existimandi sunt 
ab hujus gravissimi peccati reatu 
liberi, qui ex infantia sunt Catholici? 
Nam quicunque verbo Dei credide- 
runt, ut Catholici fierent, utique aut 
ex Paganis, aut ex Judzis, aut ex 
hereticis, in gratiam Christi pacem- 

ue venerunt: quibus si non est 

imissum quod dixerunt verbum 
contra Spiritum Sanctum, inaniter 
promittitur et pradicatur homini- 
bus, ut convertantur ad Deum, et 
sive in baptismo sive in ecclesia pa- 
cem remissionemque accipiant pec- 
catorum. 


342 The great crimes, XVI. vii. 


remission of sins by baptism, or in the Church. For it is not 
said, with any exception, This sin shall not be forgiven, save 
only in baptism: but, It shall not be forgiven, neither in this 
world, nor in the world to come.’ Hence he infers, that it is 
not all kind of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but a parti- 
cular sort of blasphemy that is thus threatened. And that is, 
final impenitency, or resisting to the uttermost the gracious 
offers of remission of sins made by the Holy Ghost. ‘This im- 
penitency 68 is the blasphemy that has neither remission in this 
world, nor in the world to come. But of this impenitency no 
one can judge, so long as a man lives in this life. We are to 
despair of no man, so long as the patience of God leads him to 
repentance, and does not snatch away the sinner out of life, 
who would not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should 
return and live. A man is a Pagan to day, but how knowest 
thou but that he may become a Christian to-morrow? To day 
he is an unbelieving Jew: but what if to-morrow he should 
believe in Christ? To-day he is an heretic: but what if to- 
morrow he should embrace the Catholic truth? To-day he is 
a schismatic: but what if to-morrow he should return to the 
peace of the Church? What if they, whom you mark as im- 
mersed in any kind of error, and damn as desperate, should 
repent before they end this life, and find true life in the world 
to come? Judge nothing, brethren, before the time. For this 


68 Ibid. c. 13. (p. 394d.) Hee 
omnino impcenitentia non habet re- 
missionem, neque in hoc seculo, 
neque in futuro: quia peenitentia 
impetrat remissionem in hoc secu- 
lo, que valeat in futuro. Sed ista 
impeenitentia vel cor impcenitens, 
quamdiu quisque in hac carne vivit, 
non potest judicari. De nullo enim 
desperandum est, quamdiu patientia 
Dei ad peenitentiam adducit, nec de 
hac vita rapit impium, qui non mor- 
tem vult impii, quantum ut reverta- 
tur et vivat. Paganus est hodie: 
unde scis, utrum sit futurus cras- 
tino Christianus? Judzus infidelis 
est hodie: quid, si cras credat in 
Christum? Hereticus est hodie: 
quid si cras sequatur Catholicam 
veritatem? Schismaticus est hodie : 


quid si cras amplectatur Catholicam 
pacem? Quid si isti, quos in quo- 
cunque genere erroris notas, et tan- 
quam desperatissimos damnas, an- 
tequam finiant istam vitam, agant 
peenitentiam, et inveniant veram vi- 
tam in futuro? Proinde, fratres, 
etiam ad hoc vos admoneat, quod 
ait Apostolus, Nolite ante tempus 
quidquam judicare. Hec enim blas- 
phemia Spiritus, cui nunguam est 
ulla remissio, (quam non omnem, 
sed quandam intelleximus, eamque 
perseverantem duritiam cordis im- 
peenitentis vel diximus vel inveni- 
mus, vel etiam quantum existima- 
mus, ostendimus,) non potest in 
quoquam, ut diximus, dum in hac 
adhuc vita est, deprehendi. 


blasphemy, §c. 343 


blasphemy of the Spirit, which has no remission, and which we 
have shown to be a persevering hardness of an impenitent 
heart, cannot be descried in any man whilst he continues in 
this life.’ At last he concludes®?: ‘There is but one way to 
avoid the condemnation of this unpardonable blasphemy, which 
is, to beware of an impenitent heart, and to believe that re- 
pentance profits not but only in the Catholic Church, where 
remission is granted, and the unity of the Spirit is preserved in 
the bond of peace.’ 

St. Austin often repeats this notion7°, and he gives the same 
account of what the Apostle calls the sin unto death, for which 
he forbids men to pray. He says, it means ‘ that hardness and 
impenitency of heart, whereby men obstinately reject faith, 
and charity, and remission of sins to their last hour.’ And 
whereas he had seemed to say in one place7?, ‘ that this blas- 
phemy consisted in a malicious and envious opposition to bro- 
therly charity, after a man had received the grace of the Holy 
Ghost :’ he explains this in his Retractations7?, saying, ‘ there 
ought to be added this condition, ἐγ he ends this wicked per- 
verseness of mind: because we are not to despair of the very 
worst man, while he continues in this life ; neither is there any 


imprudence in praying for him, of whom we do not despair.’ 


69 Serm. 11. de Verb. Dom. [al. 
Serm. 71.] c. 24. (ibid. p. 403 g.) 
Unum suffugium est, ne sit irre- 
missibilis blasphemia, ut cor impe- 
pitens caveatur, nec aliter poeniten- 
tia prodesse credatur, nisi ut tenea- 
tur ecclesia, ubi remissio peccatorum 
datur, et societas spiritus in pacis 
vinculo custoditur. 

70 De Corrept. et Grat. c. 12. 
(t. το. p. 770 Ὁ.) Ego autem dico 
id esse peccatum [scil. ad mortem], 
fidem, que per dilectionem operatur, 
deferere usque ad mortem.—Ep. 1. 
[al. Ep. 185. c. 11.] (t. 2. p. 662 f.) 
Hoc est autem dunitia cordis usque 
ad finem hujus vite, qua homo recu- 
sat in unitate corporis Christi, quod 
vivificat Spiritus Sanctus, remissio- 
nem accipere peccatorum.—Enchi- 
rid. c. 83. (t. 6. p. 228 6.) Qui vero, 
in ecclesia remitti peccata non cre- 
dens, contemnit tantam divini mu- 
neris largitatem, et in hac obstina- 


tione mentis diem claudit extremum, 
reus est irremissibili peccato in Spi- 
ritum Sanctum, in quo Christus 
peccata dimittit. 

71 De Serm. Dom. in Mont. 1.1. 
6. 22. (t. 3. part. 2. p.198 c.) Nune 
enim in Filium hominis dixerunt 
verbum nequam; et potest eis di- 
mitti, si conversi fuerint, et ei cre- 
diderint, et Spiritum Sanctum ac- 
ceperint: quo accepto, si fraternitati 
invidere, et gratiam, quam accepe- 
runt, oppugnare voluerint, non eis 
dimitti, neque in hoc seculo neque 
in futuro. 

72 L. τ, c. 19. (t. 1. Ὁ. 31 a.) Sed 
tamen addendum fuit, si in hac tam 
scelerata mentis perversitate finierit 
hance vitam; quoniam de quocunque 
pessimo in hac vita constituto non 
est utique desperandum, nec pro illo 
imprudenter oratur, de quo non de- 
speratur. 


944 The great crimes, 

He confirms this notion again at large in his Commentary 
upon the Epistle to the Romans: where 7* he first gives this 
description of it: ‘ That man sins against the Holy Ghost, who 
despairing, or deriding, or contemning the preaching of grace, 
by which sins are washed away, and the preaching of peace, 
by which we are reconciled to God, refuses to repent of his 
sins, and resolves to continue hardening himself in the impious 
and deadly sweetness of them, and therein persists to his last 
end.’ He then shows by great variety of instances, that any 
other blasphemy against the Spirit is capable of pardon, except 
this, which includes obduration to the last. ‘The Pagans 74 
daily blaspheme the whole Trinity and the whole system of the 
Christian religion: and yet the Church makes no scruple to 
receive them to pardon of sins by baptism upon their con- 
version. The Jews are charged by Stephen for resisting the 
Holy Ghost, and yet Paul, who was then one of the number of 
those whom he so charged, was afterwards filled with the same 
Spirit which he had resisted. The Samaritans opposed the 


XVI. vii. 


73 Expos. in Rom. t. t. 4. p. 363. 
(t. 3. part. 2. p. 933 b.) Ille peccat 
in Spiritum Sanctum, qui, desperans 
vel irridens atque contemnens pre- 
dicationem gratiz, per quam pec- 
cata diluuntur, et pacis, per quam 
reconciliamur Deo, detrectat agere 
penitentiam de peccatis suis, et in 
eorum impia atque mortifera qua- 
dam suavitate perdurandum 510] 
esse decernit, et in finem usque per- 
durat. 

74 Ibid. (p. 934 a.) Nam et Pa- 
gani, qui appellantur, etiam nune 
totam nostram religionem, quia jam 
ferro et ceedibus prohibentur, male- 
dictis contumeliisque insectantur : 
et, quidquid de ipsa Trinitate dici- 
mus, negando et blasphemando con- 
temnunt. Non enim excipiunt sibi 
Spiritum Sanctum, quem veneren- 
tur, ut in cetera seeviant: sed simul 
adversus omnia, quecunque solicite 
de Trina Dei Majestate loquimur, 
quanto pussunt furore impietatis 
oblatrant. Nam neque de ipso Deo 
Patre digna sentiunt, quem partim 
[sic] penitus negant, partim sic fa- 
tentur, ut de illo falsa fingendo, non 
utique illum, sed sua figmenta vene- 


rentur. Multo magis ergo, quod de 
Filio Dei, vel de Spiritu Sancto di- 
cimus, suo impio more deridere, 
quam nostra pia societate colere, 
maluerunt. Quos tamen, quantum 
possumus, adhortamur ad Christum 
cognoscendum, et per ipsum Patrem 
Deum, summoque et vero Impera- 
tori militandum esse suademus; eos- 
que, promissa impunitate preeterito- 
rum omnium peccatorum, invitamus 
ad fidem. Qua in re satis judica- 
mus, etiam si quid adversus Spiri- 
tum Sanctum in sua sacrilega su- 
perstitione dixerunt, cum Christiani 
facti fuerint, sine ulla caligine du- 
bitationis ignosci. Judzi vero qua- 
les adversus Spiritum Sanctum fue- 
rint, testis est Stephanus, quem ipso 
Spiritu Sancto plenum lapidaverunt, 
cum illa omnia, que in eos dixit, 
ipse Spiritus dixerit. In quibus ver- 
bis apertissime dictum est Judzis, 
Vos semper restitistis Spiritui Sancto. 
In illo tamen numero Judzeorum 
resistentium Spiritui Saneto, et non 
ob aliud Stephanum, vas ejus, nisi 
quod ipse eo plenus erat, lapidan- 
tium, etiam Paulus Apostolus erat, 
in manibus omnium quorum vesti- 


blasphemy, δ᾽ 6. 345 


Holy Ghost, and yet both Christ and his Apostles attest to the 
conversion of many of them. Simon Magus had conceived 
very ill opinions of the Holy Spirit, so as to think his gifts 
might be purchased with money; yet St. Peter did not despair 
of him, so as to leave him no room for pardon, but kindly 
admonished him to repent. Neither does the Catholic Church 
shut the gate of pardon to any heretics or schismatics, or leave 
them without hopes of appeasing God upon their correction 
and amendment: though some of them deny the very being 
and person of the Holy Ghost; others make him a mere 
creature, and deny his Godhead ; others make the substance 
of the whole Trinity mutable and corruptible ; others deny the 


menta servabat ; quod ipse sibi post- 
ea etiam pcenitendo increpitat, eo 
ipso Spiritu jam plenissimus, cui 
primo inanissimus resistebat, et pa- 
ratus jam lapidari pro talibus dictis, 
qualium predicatorem ipse lapida- 
verat. Quid Samaritani? Nonne 
ita Spiritui Sancto adversantur, ut 
ipsam prophetiam penitus conentur 
extinguere, que per Spiritum Sanc- 
tum ministrata est? Quorum tamen 
saluti et ipse Dominus attestatur, in 
eo, qui de decem leprosis mundatis 
solus reversus est ut ageret gratias, 
cum esset Samaritanus; et in illa 
muliere, cum qua ad puteum sexta 
hora locutus est, vel eis, qui per 
illam crediderunt. Post Domini au- 
tem ascensionem, sicut in Actibus 
Apostolorum scriptum est, quanta 
gratulatione sanctorum recipit Sa- 
maria verbum Dei! Simonem quo- 
que Magum arguens Petrus Apo- 
stolus, quod tam male de Spiritu 
Sancto senserit, ut eum venalem 
putans pecunia sibi emendum po- 
poscerit, non tamen ita de illo de- 
speravit, ut veniz locum nullum re- 
linqueret: nam benigne etiam, ut 
eum peeniteret, admonuit. Ipsa de- 
nique Catholic ecclesie tam in- 
signis auctoritas, que in eodem dono 
Spiritus Sancti omnium sanctorum 
mater, toto foecunda orbe diffundi- 
tur, cul unquam heretico vel schis- 
matico spem liberationis, si se cor- 
rigat, amputavit? Cui placandi Dei 
aditum clausit? Nonne omnes ad 
ubera sua, que superbo fastidio re- 


liquerunt, cum lacrymis revocat ὃ 
Quis vero vel de principibus, vel de 
gregibus hereticorum invenitur, qui 
non adversetur Spiritui Sancto ὃ 
Nisi forte quisquam tam perverse 
sentit, ut arbitretur eum teneri reum, 
qui adversus Spiritum Sanctum ali- 
quid dixerit; eum vero, qui adver- 
sus Spiritum Sanctum multa fecerit, 
non teneri. Qui autem tanta evi- 
dentia contra Spiritam Sanctum 
pugnant, quam illi, qui adversus 
ecclesia pacem superbissimis con- 
tentionibus seviunt? Sed si de 
verbis queestio est, quero, utrum ni- 
hil dicant adversus Spiritum Sanc- 
tum, cum alii eum, quod ad ipsum 
proprie pertinet, omnino non esse 
asseverent: sed ita esse unum De- 
um, ut idem ipse Pater, idem ipse 
Filius, idem ipse Spiritus Sanctus 
appelletur. Ali fateantur quidem 
esse Spiritum Sanctum; sed equa- 
lem Filio, vel omnino esse Deum 
negent. Alii unam quidem et ean- 
dem Trinitatis substantiam esse fa- 
teantur, sed de ipsa divina substantia 
tam impie sentiant, ut eam commu- 
tabilem et corruptibilem putent: ip- 
sumque Spiritum Sanctum, quem 
Dominus discipulis se missurum 
esse promisit, non quinquagesimo 
die post ejus resurrectionem, sicut 
Apostolorum Acta testantur, sed 
post trecentos fere annos per homi- 
nem venisse confingant. Alii simi- 
liter adventum ejus, quem tenemus, 
negent: et eum eel in Phry- 
gia, per quos tanto post loqueretur, 


346 The great crimes, 


mission of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, and make his 
first descent to be upon Montanus; and others despise his 
sacraments, and rebaptize those who were baptized before in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’ 

Nay, he thinks 75 ‘ that some of those very Jews, to whom 
our Saviour gave a caution against this crime, afterwards re- 
pented of their blasphemy, though proceeding from envy and 
malice: and that St. Paul may be reckoned one of that num- 
ber; being a blasphemer, and a persecutor and injurious, as 
they were, in ignorance and unbelief; and putting himself in 
the number of those who were sometimes foolish, disobedient, 
deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in envy and 
malice, hateful and hating one another. If therefore neither 
Pagans, nor Hebrews, nor heretics, nor schismatics, yet unbap- 
tized, are precluded from the sacrament of baptism, whatever 
opposition they have made to the Holy Ghost before, if they 
sincerely repent and condemn their former life; if also they 
who have attained to the knowledge of the truth, and are bap- 
tized, may, after they have fallen into sin and resisted the 
Holy Ghost, be restored to the peace of God by repentance ; 
finally, if they, to whom our Saviour objected blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost, might repent and be healed by flying to the 
mercy of God; what remains but that by the sin against the 


XVI. vii. 


elegisse contendant. Alii sacramenta 
ejus exsufflent, et baptizatos in no- 
mine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 
denuo baptizare non dubitent. Sed 
he pergam per singula, que sunt 
innumerabilia, his certe omnibus, 
quos pro tempore breviter attigi, ad 
sponsam Christi redeuntibus, et er- 
rorem atque impietatem pcenitendo 
damnantibus, nulla Catholica disci- 
plina negandam ecclesiz pacem, et 
claudenda viscera misericordie ju- 
dicavit. 

75 Ibid. p. 366. (p. 938 g. et p. 
939 a.) Veruntamen si ex eo quo- 
que hominum numero, quibus Do- 
minus illud crimen objicit, veniens 
ad fidem Christi, et pcenitendi cru- 
ciatibus edomita invidia salutem cum 
lacrymis poscens, sicut etiam non- 
nulli eorum fortasse fecerunt; que- 
ro, utrum quisquam tanto errore 
crudescat, ut aut neget eos ad Christi 


baptismum admitti oportuisse, aut 
frustra admissos esse contendat? 
Nam si quis per invidiam opera di- 
vina blasphemat, quoniam bonis 
Dei, hoc est donis Dei malitia sua 
resistit, in Spiritum Sanctum pec- 
care, et propterea spem venie non 
habere existimandus est; attenda- 
mus, utrum ex eo numero fuerit 
Apostolus Paulus? Dicit enim, Qui 
prius fui blasphemus, et persecutor, 
et injuriosus ; sed misericordiam con- 
secutus sum, quia ignorans fect in 
incredulitate. An forte ideo non 
pertinuit ad hoc genus criminis, 
quia non erat invidus? Audiamus, 
quid alibi dicat: Fuimus enim, in- 
quit, et nos stulti aliquando et in- 
creduli, errantes, servientes volupta- 
tibus et desideriis variis, in malitia 
et invidia agentes, abominabiles, in- 
vicem odio habentes.. Si ergo nec 
Paganis, nec Hebreis, nec hereti- 


Ὁ 3. 


blasphemy, δ᾽6. 947 


Holy Ghost, which our Lord says “is never forgiven, neither 
in this world nor the world to come,” we should understand 
nothing else but perseverance in malignity and wickedness, 
with despair of the indulgence and mercy of God? For this 
is to resist the grace and peace of the Spirit, of which we are 
speaking. He says also, that our Saviour in the same place, 
where he reproves the Jews for their blasphemy, intimates 
that the door of repentance and amendment was not yet shut 
against them, when he says, “ Either make the tree good, and 
its fruit good; or else make the tree evil, and its fruit evil.” 
Which could not with any reason have been said to them, if 
now for that blasphemy they could not have changed their 
mind for the better, and have brought forth the fruit of good 
works, or should in vain have brought them forth without re- 
mission of their sin.’ He therefore concludes”, ‘ that they had 
not yet committed fully the unpardonable sin, but only begun 
it, in saying that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that 
Christ admonishes them not to complete it, by resisting his 
grace and peace, either by despairing of pardon, or presuming 
on their own righteousness, or continuing impenitent, and per- 


cis, aut schismaticis nondum bapti- 
zatis, ad baptismum Christi aditus 
clauditur, ubi condemnata vita pri- 
ore in melius commutentur; quam- 
vis Christianitati et ecclesia Dei 
adversantes, antequam Christianis 
sacramentis abluerentur, etiam Spi- 
ritui Sancto, quanta potuerunt in- 
festatione restiterint; si etiam ho- 
minibus, qui usque ad sacramento- 
rum perceptionem veritatis scientiam 
perceperunt, et post hec lapsi Spi- 
ritui Sancto restiterunt, ad sanitatem 
redeuntibus, et pacem Dei peenitendo 
querentibus, auxilium misericordiz 
non negatur; si denique de illis ip- 
sis, quibus blasphemiam in Spiritum 
Sanctum ab eis prolatam Dominus 
objecit, si qui resipiscentes ad Dei 
gratiam confugerunt, sine ulla du- 
bitatione sanati sunt; quid aliud 
restat, nisi ut peccatum in Spiritum 
Sanctum, quod neque in hoc secu- 
lo neque in futuro dimitti Dominus 
dicit, nullum intelligatur nisi per- 
severantia in nequitia et in maligni- 
tate, cum desperatione indulgentize 
Dei? Hoc est enim gratiz illius et 


paci resistere, de quibus nobis sermo 
nunc ortus est. Nam hinc licet ad- 
vertere, etiam ipsis Judzis, quorum 
blasphemiam Dominus arguit, non 
fuisse clausum corrigendi se et po- 
nitendi locum, quod idem Dominus 
in ea ipsa reprehensione ait illis, 
Aut facite arborem bonam et fructum 
ejus bonum ; aut facite arborem ma- 
lam et fructum ejus malum. Quod 
utique nulla ratione diceretur eis, si 
propter illam blasphemiam jam com- 
mutare animum in melius, et recte 
factorum fructus generare non pos- 
sent, aut frustra etiam sine peccati 
sui dimissione generent ; &c. 

76 Ibid. (p. 940 b.) Cum dix- 
issent Judei, quod in Beelzebub 
ejiceret demonia, misericorditer 
eos voluit admonere, ne verbum 
dicerent, et blasphemiam in Spi- 
ritum Sanctum; hoc est, ne gra- 
tia Dei pacique resisterent, quam 
per Spiritum Sanctum donare Do- 
minus venerat. Non quia jam hoc 
fecerant, quod sibi neque in hoc 
seculo neque in futuro dimitteretur ; 
sed ne desperando de venia, aut 


348 XVI. vii. 


The great crimes, 


severing in their sins: for this was to speak the blasphemous 
word against the Holy Ghost, by which Christ wrought those 
miracles to bring them to his grace and peace.’ He observes 
here’, ‘ that to speak blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is not 
put to denote barely the uttering it with the tongue, but the 
conceiving it in the heart, and expressing it in actions. For 
as they are not properly said to confess God, who do it only 
with the sound of their lips, and not with their good works : 
so he, who speaks the unpardonable word against the Holy 
Ghost, is not presumed to say it perfectly, unless he do as well 
as say it: that is, despair of the grace and peace which the 
Spirit gives, and resolve to persevere in his sins. That as the 
others deny God in their works, so these say by their works 
that they resolve to persevere in an eyil life and corrupt 
morals, and so say and so do, that is, continue in them to the 
end of their days. Which if they do, what needs any one 
wonder that their blasphemy should be unpardonable? Or 
who is it now that cannot understand both that the Lord Jesus 
by that commination called the Jews to repentance, that he 
might grant them grace and peace by their believing on him: 
and also how it becomes impossible that they should have par- 


quasi de sua justitia prassumendo, 
et peenitentiam non agendo, aut per- 
severando in peccatis, hoc facerent : 
hoe modo enim dicerent verbum, 
hoe est blasphemiam in Spiritum 
Sanctum, in quo Dominus signa 
illa propter largiendam gratiam pa- 
cemque faciebat, si perseverantia 
peccatorum ipsi gratie pacique re- 
sisterent. 

77 Tbid. (c.) Verbum enim dicere, 
non ita videtur hic positum, ut tan- 
tummodo illud intelligatur, quod per 
linguam fabricamus, sed quod corde 
conceptum, etiam opere exprimimus. 
Sicut enim non confitentur Deum, 
qui tantum oris sono confitentur, 
non etiam bonis operibus: nam de 
his dictum est, Confitentur enim se 
nosse Deum, factis autem negant. 
Ex quo manifestum est dici aliquid 
factis, sicut manifestum est negari 
aliquid factis. Et sicut illud, quod 
ait Apostolus, Nemo dicit Dominus 
Jesus, nisi in Spiritu Sancto, non 
potest recte intelligi, nisi in factis 


dicere intelligatur. Non enim hoc 
in Spiritu Sancto dicere putandi 
sunt, quibus ipse Dominus dicit, 
Aut quid mihi dicitis, Domine! Do- 
mine ! et non facitis que dico vobis ? 
et illud, Non omnis, qui mihi dicit, 
Domine! Domine ! intrabit in regnum 
celorum. Sic etiam qui hoe ver- 
bum, quod sine venia vult intelligi 
Dominus, in Spiritum Sanctum di- 
cit, hoc est, qui, desperans de gratia 
et pace quam donat, in peccatis suis 
perseverandum sibi esse dicit, di- 
cere intelligendus est factis : ut quo- 
modo illi factis Dominum negant, 
sic isti factis dicant se in mala vita 
sua et perditis moribus perseveratu- 
ros, et ita faciant, hoc est, perseve- 
rent. Quod si faciunt, quis jam 
miretur, aut quis non intelligat, et 
Dominum Jesum Christum per il- 
lam comminationem ad peenitentiam 
vocasse Judzos, ut eis in se cre- 
dentibus gratiam pacemque dona- 
ret: et huic gratiz pacique resisten- 
tibus et hoc modo verbum atque 


δ 3. 


blasphemy, Sve. 849 


don either in this world or the world to come, who resist this 
grace and peace, and after this manner speak the word of 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that is, by a desperate 
and impious obstinacy of mind persevere in their sins, and 
proudly resist God without any humility of confession or re- 
pentance ?’ 

This was St. Austin’s constant and invariable sense of this 
matter, out of which the Schoolmen, I know not how, have 
raised six several species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
viz. despair, presumption, final impenitency, obstinacy in sin, 
opposing and impugning the truth which a man knows, and 
envious malice against the grace of the brethren: whereas 
nothing can be plainer than that St. Austin resolves the whole 
matter into obstinacy in opposing the methods of divine grace, 
and continuing in this obduration finally without repentance. 
Other sins may lead the way to this blasphemy in word or 
action, as infidelity or reviling the Spirit in Jews or Heathens ; 
or heresy, or schism, or an immoral life in Christians after 
baptism: but all this is only inchoative blasphemy, which does 
not render it absolutely unpardonable: for many of all these 
sorts have repented and obtained pardon: but when men 
continue obstinate in any of these sins, and finally die impeni- 
tent in them, then their sins become punishable in both worlds, 
and pardonable in neither; not for want of mercy in God or 
his Church, but for want of repentance and capacity in the 
subject. 

And by this account it is easy now to determine what sort 
of punishments and ecclesiastical censures were inflicted on 
this crime, as well in the first rise and beginning, as in the 
progress and consummation of it. The same punishment that 
was laid upon idolatry, or apostasy, or denying the divinity of 
Christ or the Holy Spirit, or lapsing into any great immorality 
or other blasphemy after baptism, was laid upon this sin of 
blaspheming the Holy Ghost: because it usually began in 
some of these notorious misdemeanours ; of which if men truly 
repented, the door of mercy was still open to them, and the 


blasphemiam in Spiritum Sanctum Deum sine humilitate confessionis 
dicentibus, hoc est, in peccatis suis atque pcenitentiz superbientibus, ne- 
desperata atque impia mentis obsti- que in hoc seculo neque in futuro 
natione perseverantibus, et adversus veniam posse concedi? 


350 The great crimes, XVI. vi. 


Church was ready to receive them again to communion: but 
if they continued obdurate all their lives, and died in their 
impenitency ; as this was esteemed the consummation of the 
great sin against the Holy Ghost, and properly the sin unto 
death; so it could have no forgiveness in this world, nor the 
world to come. They died excommunicate, and so had neither 
the solemnity of a Christian burial nor the suffrages of the 
Church after death; being struck out of her diptychs, and no 
memorial ever after made of them, as of persons desperate and 
entirely out of God’s favour. 
I have been the longer in explaining the sense of the 
Ancients upon this point, not only because it is not very com- 
monly known, but also because it may be of use, both to cau- 
tion ungodly men against the danger of final impenitency, 
which is the consummation of the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost; and likewise serve to comfort the pious, who need be 
in no concern about the commission of this sin, so long as they 
truly repent of all sin, and desire to please God in the constant 
tenour of an holy life. For this sin cannot consist with a true 
repentance: and though men have begun in any degree to 
commit it, yet according to the general sense of the Ancients, 
they are still capable of pardon, if they do not render it un- 
pardonable by their own obstinacy and wilful impenitency to 
the hour of death, after which it can have no forgiveness in 
this world or the world to come. 
Of profane 4. The next transgression of the Third Commandment which 
‘All oath, tHey punished with ecclesiastical censure was profane swear- 
not forbid- ing, or reproaching and dishonouring the name of God by 
ae oaths and execrations. By which they did not mean all oaths 
in general, nor yet any single act of rash and hasty swearing, 
unless attended with some other aggravating crime or cir- 
cumstance of apostasy, idolatry, perjury, or the like, but only 
the habit and custom of profane swearing. Chrysostom indeed, 
and some others, in their sharp invectives against common 
swearing seem sometimes to carry the matter so far as to deny 
the lawfulness of all oaths to Christians 76 in any case whatso- 
ever. But, whatever private opinions some few might have of 
this matter, in which they were not constant or consistent with 


_ 76 Vid. Sixtum Senensem, Bib- 5644.) where all such passages are 
loth. 1. 6. annot. 26. (t. 2. pp. 219, collected. 


84. 


profane swearing, δ᾽ 6. 951 


‘themselves, as learned men77 have observed, it is certain 


there never was any public rule of the Church to forbid this, 
and much less to make it the subject of ecclesiastical censure. 
The generality of Christians always esteemed the taking of an 
oath in necessary cases for confirmation of truth to be a very 
lawful thing, as appears both from the laws themselves, eccle- 
siastical as well as civil, and from general practice. One of 
Constantine’s laws is confirmed with a solemn oath in the very 
body of it, where he promises to encourage any one that shall 
give just information against the corrupt practices of his minis- 
ters, with this formal asseveration7$: ‘As the Most High 
God shall be merciful to me, and preserve me in safety, 
according to my desire, in the flourishing state of the common- 
wealth.’ 

Nothing was more usual than the taking of oaths for con- 
firmation of contracts, as is evident from that famous law of 
Arcadius 79, which inflicts many severe penalties upon all that 
violate their contracts made in the name and confirmed by the 
authority of Almighty God: and also on such as broke their 
contracts, which they confirmed by an oath taken in that 
peculiar form of swearing, By the emperor's safety; which 
was an usual form of an oath among Christians, as ancient as 
Tertullian, who mentions it in answer to an objection made by 
the Heathen against them, as if they were enemies to the 
government, and guilty of treason, because they refused to 
swear by the emperor's genius: to this he replies 8°, ‘That 


77 Cave, Primitive Christianity, 
part. 3. ch. 1. p. 213. (pp. 272, &c.) 
This honest and ingenuous simpli- 
city, &e. 

8 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 1. de Ac- 
cusation. leg. 4. (t. 3. p. 6.) Ita mi- 
hi Summa Divinitas semper propitia 
sit, et me incolumem prestet, ut cupio, 
felicissima et florente republica, 

79 Ibid. 1. 2. tit. 9. de Pactis, leg. 
8. (t. 1. p. 133.) Si quis major annis 
adversus pacta.... putaverit esse 
veniendum.... non implendo pro- 
missa ea, que, invocato nomine Dei 
Omnipotentis, eo auctore solidave- 
rit, inuratur infamia, &c. Eos e- 
tiam hujus litis vel jactura dignos 
jubemus esse vel munere, qui no- 
mina nostra placitis inserentes, sa- 


lutem principum confirmationem in- 
itarum esse juraverint pactionum. 
80 Apol. c. 32. (p. 28a.) Sed et 
juramus, sicut non per genios Ce- 
sarum, ita per salutem eorum, que 
est augustior omnibus geniis. Nes- 
citis genios demonas dici, et inde 
diminutiva voce demonia? Nos ju- 
dicium Dei suspicimus in impera- 
toribus, qui gentibus illos preefecit. 
Id in eis scimus esse, quod Deus 
voluit ; ideoque et salvum volumus 
esse quod Deus voluit, et pro mag- 
no id juramento habemus. Cete- 
rum demonas, id est, genios, adju- 
rare consuevimus, ut illos de ho- 
minibus exigamus, non dejerare ut 
illis honorem divinitatis conferamus. 


352 The great crimes, 


though they did not swear by the emperor’s genius, yet they 
made no scruple to swear by the emperor’s safety, a thing 
more august than all the genii in the world. For the genii 
were nothing but devils. In the emperors they acknowledged 
God’s institution and authority, who set them over the nations: 
and therefore they desired their safety and preservation, as 
God’s appointment, and made a great and solemn oath of that: 
but for the demons, or genti, they were used to adjure them, 
in order to cast them out of the bodies of men, not to swear by 
them and thereby confer divine honour upon them.’ Athana- 
sius 51 mentions the same form as used in his time, both by the 
Catholics, and by Syrianus the prefect of Egypt, telling Con- 
stantius that he swore ‘by his safety.’ And the like instances 
are given by Sozomen 82, and Zosimus*? the Heathen his- 
torian. 

In the Collation of Carthage 55, Marcellinus, the emperor’s 
commissioner, who was appointed to hear the debate between 
the Catholics and the Donatists in the time of Honorius, at the 
entrance of the dispute promised both sides upon oath ‘ by the 
admirable mystery of the Trinity, and the sacrament or mystery 
of the Divine Incarnation, and the safety of the emperors, that 
he would judge truly according to the allegations of the 
parties.’ And the same form was observed in the military oath 
taken by the soldiers, when they entered upon the muster-roll, 
as we learn from Vegetius 55, who lived in the time of the 
younger Valentinian: he says, ‘ they swore by God, by Christ, 


81 Ep. ad Monachos. t. 1. πρὸς ᾿Αλάριχον. 


XVI. vu. 


866. [Contestatio Secunda (t. + 
part. 1. p. 311 6. ) ἱορκίζομεν κατὰ 
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ τῆς 
σωτηρίας τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου Αὐγούσ- 
του Κωνσταντίου, τόν τε ἔπαρχον τῆς 
Αἰγύπτου Μάξιμον, k.r.A.—Cf. Atha- 
nas. Apol. ad Constant. t. 1. p. 689. 
(ibid. P. 245 f.n. 24.) Συνιδὼν Sv- 
ριανὸς τὸ εὔλογον, διεβεβαιώσατο μαρ- 
τυρόμενος τὴν σὴν σωτηρίαν, καὶ ἐπὶ 
TOUT@ παρὴν τότε καὶ Ἰλάριος, μηκέτι 
μὲν διοχλεῖν, ἀναφέρειν δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν σὴν 
θεοσέβειαν. 

82 L. 9. c. 4.(v. 2. p. 373. 16.).. 
Πρὸς τῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ βασιλέως αὐ- 
τὸς ὦμοσε, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἄρχοντας 
παρεσκεύασε, μή ποτε εἰρήνην θέσθαι 


85 L. 5. 6. 40. (Pp. 643.) Ὥμνυ 
δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὅρκον, τῆς βασιλείας ἁ ἁ- 
ψάμενος κεφαλῆς, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἱ 
τὰς ἀρχὰς εἶχον, ταὐτὸν ποιῆσαι πα- 
ρασκευάσας. 

84 Die 1. c. 5. (CC. t. 2. p. 3347 
d.) Per admirabile mysterium Tri- 
nitatis, per incarnationis Dominice 
sacramentum, et per salutem prin- 
cipum, quod veri invenerit fides, ju- 
dicaturum me esse promitto. 

85 De Re Millitari, 1. 2. c. 5. (p. 
43.) Jurant autem per Deum et per 
Christum et per Spiritum Sanctum, 
et per majestatem imperatoris, que 
secundum Deum generi humano di- 
ligenda est et colenda, 


profane swearing, §c. 353 


and the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of the emperor, which, 
next to Ged, is to be loved and honoured by mankind.’ In 
many other cases the law required men to swear upon weighty 
concerns. Constantine 8° required every witness to take an 
oath before he gave his testimony in any cause. And Jus- 
tinian not only confirmed this in his Code 57, but added several 
other cases, in which not only witnesses, but also both the 
plaintiff and defendant, and the advocates were to take their 
several oaths upon the Gospels. And this was called 58. ju- 
ramentum de calumnia, the oath of calumny, where the 
plaintiff was particularly obliged before he could prosecute his 
action, to swear that he did not bring his action against his 
adversary with any design to calumniate him, but because he 
thought he had a just and righteous cause: and the defendant 
was to take a like oath before he could give in his answer. 
They were likewise obliged by another law 59 to swear, ‘ that 
they had given no bribe to the Judges or any other person, nor 


romised to give any, nor would hereafter give any.’ 
any ξ yi 


And it 


has been observed before 90, that to prevent simony in elections 


86 Cod. Theod. 1. 11. tit. 39. leg. 
3. (t. 4. p. 321.) Jurisjurandi reli- 
gione testes, priusquam perhibeant 
testimonium, jam dudum arctari 
precipimus. 

87 L. 4. tit. 20. de Testibus, leg. 9. 
(t. 4. p. 858.) In the same words as 
the preceding. 

88 Ibid. tit. 59. de Jurejurando 
propter calumniam dando, leg. 1. ({. 
4. p. 540. ad calc.) In omnibus cau- 
sis, sive propter literas fuerit apud te 
certatum, sive propter instrumenta, 
sive propter quicquam aliud, in quo 
necessitas probationis incumbit: san- 
cimus non aliter easdem probationes 
prestare compelli, nisi prius, qui eas 
exposcit, juramentum de calumnia 
prestiterit, &c.—Ibid. leg. 2. (Ρ. 542. 
ad cale.) Cum [et] judices non aliter 
causas dirimere concesserimus, nisi 
sacrosanctis Evangeliis propositis et 
patronos causarum in omni orbe 
terrarum prius jurare, et ita per- 
ferre causas disposuerimus ; neces- 
sarium duximus presentem legem 
ponere, per quam sancimus in om- 
nibus litibus, que fuerint post pre- 
sentem legem inchoate, non aliter 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


neque actorem neque fugientem in 
primordio litis exercere certamina, 
nisi post narrationem et responsio- 
nem, antequam utriusque partis ad- 
vocati sacramentum legitimum pre- 
stent, ipsz principales persone sub- 
eant jus jurandum. Et actor quidem 
juret, Non calumniandi animo litem 
se movisse, sed existimando bonam 
causam habere. Reus autem non 
aliter suis allegationibus utatur, nisi 
prius et ipse juraverit, Quod, putans 
se bona instantia uti, ad reluctan- 
dum pervenerit. Et postea utriusque 
partis viros disertissimos advocatos, 
secundum quod jam dispositum est 
a nobis, juramentum prestare, sa- 
crosanctis videlicet Evangeliis ante 
judicem positis. 

89 Novel. 124. c. I. (Ὁ. 5. p. 564.) 
... In presentia judicum tangentes 
sancta Evangelia jurare, quod nihil 
penitus judicibus, aut patrocinii 
causa ipsis, vel alii cuicunque per- 
son, pro hac causa quolibet modo 
dederunt, aut promiserunt, aut postea 
dabunt, vel per se, vel per aliam 
quamcunque mediam personam. 

9 Ch. 6. 5. 28. p. 319. 


Aa 


354 The great crimes, 


to ecclesiastical preferments, the electors were obliged by the 
same laws of Justinian 9! to depose upon oath, ‘ that they did 
not choose the party elected either for gift, promise, or friend- 
ship, or any other reason, but because they knew him to be in 
every respect well qualified for such a station.’ And the party 
ordained was likewise to take an oath 9? upon the Holy Gos- 
pels, at the time of his ordination, ‘ that he had neither given 
by himself, or other, nor promised to give, nor would hereafter 
give to his ordainer, or to any of his electors, or any other 
persons any thing to procure him an ordination.’ And, for 
any bishop to ordain another bishop without observing this 
rule, is ‘ deposition’ by the same law ‘ both for the ordained and 
his ordainer.’. Which shows also, that the injunction of taking 
necessary oaths did not only bind in secular and civil affairs, 
but in ecclesiastical and sacred likewise. 

And here,—not to insist upon all that is said in private writers, 
as Athanasius % requiring of Constantius, that his accusers 
might be put to their oath; and Evagrius%, archdeacon of 
Constantinople, swearing upon the holy Gospels; and what is 
said by St. Austin 9° and many others in justification of this 
practice in necessary cases;—I only observe that in some 
Councils, both general and provincial, oaths are expressly re- 
quired in many cases. The oath of fidelity to kings is re- 
quired by the fifth Council of Toledo 97, to be taken by all, 


91 Novel. 123. c. 1. See before, 
δ: ΟΠ τ. 9.008. ν. ἀνθ. 21: ὯὩξ ay 
92 Novel. 137. c. 2. See ibid. the 


quia pejerare immane peccatum est. 
—De Serm. Dom. in Mont. 1. 1. c. 
17. (t. 3. part 2. p. 187 g.).... Qui 


XVI. vil, 


second part of n. 4. 

98. Apol. ad Constant. t. τ. p. 678. 
(t. 1. part 1. p. 238 a. n. 8.) Ἔβου- 
λόμην δὲ αὐτὸν, ὅστις ἐστὶν, ἐνταῦθα 
παρεῖναι, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας 
ἐρωτῆσαι ἃ γὰρ ὡς Θεοῦ παρόντος 
λαλοῦμεν, τοῦτον ὅρκον ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς 
οἱ Χριστιανοί. 

94 Vid. Sozom. 1. 6. c. 30. (p. 263. 
43: ) Ὁ δὲ τῆς βίβλου ἐφαψάμενος, ἢ ἢ 
μὴν ὧδε πράξειν ἐπωμόσατο. 

96 Ep. 154. (al. 47.] ad Publicol. 
(t. 2. p. rro f.) Si tamen illud non 
adhuc movet, quod in Novo Tes- 
tamento dictum est, ne omnino 
juremus. Quod quidem mihi prop- 
terea dictum videtur, non quia 
verum jurare peccatum est, sed 


intelligit, non in bonis, sed in neces- 
sariis jurationem habendam, refrz- 
net se quantum potest, &c. 

% Greg. Nazianzen. Ep. 219. ad 
Theodor. tot. (t. 1. p. go8 a.) Ὁ 
Θεὸς agar κι τὸ ἐἀξαε τόσοι in 
Ps. 14. Ὁ I. ps 1935 (ies part 2. p. 
504 a.) Ti δὴ ποτε ἐνταῦθα μὲν ἡ 
εὐορκία συγχωρεῖται, κ. τ. A. — Hie- 
ron. in Matth. 5. See afterwards, 
5. 6. ἢ. 7, following. 

97 Vid. C. Tolet:'5:.¢:-2. (eam, 
1736 b.).... Quodque ... divinis 
sacramentis spospondimus, contra 
hostes laborantibus erit? que fides 
ultra cum aliis gentibus in pace cre- 
denda? quod fcedus non violan- 
dum? que in hostibus jurata spon- 


profane swearing, Sc. 355 


both clergy and laity. And a reference is made to a former 
Council of all Spain, where the same oath was established ; 
that is, the fourth Council of Toledo; where 98 a complaint is 
made of many nations ‘ breaking the oath of fidelity taken to 
their kings: which, they rightly observe, ‘destroys their 
credit with all nations in matters of leagues and treaties about 
peace and war. For what enemy can depend upon their 
promises, though given upon oath, who do not preserve the 
faith which they swear to their own kings? Such violation of 
oaths and fidelity to their kings is sacrilege: because it is not 
only a breach of compact against them, but against God, in 
whose name the promise is made.’ The same Council 99 takes 
notice of kings promising upon oath to pardon criminals in 
some special cases. And the eighth Council of Toledo? men- 
tions many cases in which it was usual to confirm matters with 
a solemn oath; as the making of leagues; the settling of last- 
ing and inviolable friendship; the taking of the evidence and 
depositions of witnesses in law ; and, in want of such evidence, 
the allowing a man to clear his own innocence by an oath of 
purgation. And in the sixth General Council, held at Constan- 
tinople 2, Georgius the chartophylax is appointed several times 
to take his corporal oath, by the holy Scriptures and God who 


conciliat, tune fidelibus durat, cum 


sio [stabilis] permanebit, quando 
nec ipsis propriis regibus juratam 
fidem conservant? ... Sacrilegium 
quippe est, si violetur a gentibus 
regum suorum promissa fides; quia 
non solum in eos fit pacti transgres- 
sio, sed et in Deum quidem, in cu- 


quippe est, si violetur a gentibus 
regum suorum promissa fides: quia 
non solum in eos sit pacti trans- 
gressio, sed et in Deum, in cujus 
nomine pollicetur ipsa promissio, 


&e. 

9 Ὁ. 30. [al. 31.] (ibid. p. 1714 
d.)... Jurejurando supplicii indul- 
gentia promittitur. 

1 C, 2. (t. 6. p. 401 Ὁ.) Etenim 
sed et omne, quod animos amicorum 


eos sacramenti vincula ligant. Om- 
ne etiam, quod testis adstipulat, tunc 
verius constat, cum id adjectio jura- 
tionis atfirmat. Quod si et testis 
deficiat, innocentis fidem sola juris- 
jurandi taxatio manifestat. 

2 Act. 13. (juxt. Ed. Crabb. t.2. p. 
378. ad calc. col. dextr.) Georgius... 
chartophylax juravit hoc modo: Per 
has sanctas Scripturas se Deum, qui 
per eas locutus est, &c.—Ap. Labb. 
(t. 6. p. 996. [corrige 966.] c.) Kai 
ἁψάμενος τῶν προκειμένων ἀχράντων 
τοῦ Θεοῦ λογίων Τεώργιος, ὁ θεοσε- 
βέστατος διάκονος καὶ χαρτοφύλαξ, 
ὥμοσεν οὕτως" Μὰ τὰς ἁγίας Τραφὰς 
ταύτας, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν λαλήσαντα 
80 αὐτῶν, κ.τ.λ.---Αοί. 14. ap. Crabb. 
(ibid. p. 382.) Per istas sanctas vir- 
tutes et Deum, qui locutus est pro 
eas, &c.—Ap. Labb. (ibid. p. 978 d.) 
Ma τὰς ἁγίας δυνάμεις ταύτας, καὶ τὸν 
Θεὸν τὸν λαλήσαντα δι' αὐτῶν, κι.τ.λ. 


Αἃ 2 


356 XVI. vii. 


The great crimes, 


speaks in them, concerning certain things, the truth of which 
he was to attest before the Council. 

From all which it is evident, that the ancient Christians 
thought it a very lawful thing to ratify and confirm their faith 
by the formality of an oath, upon just and necessary occasions : 
and consequently, that there could be no rule to prohibit it, 
much less to make it a crime worthy of ecclesiastical censure. 

5. Neither was it every single act of vain and common 
swearing that brought a man under public discipline. For 
though every such act was esteemed a crime, yet it was not 
like the single act of apostasy or idolatry, or murder or adul- 
tery, but it must be a custom or habit of this vice, that made a 
man liable to the severity of excommunication. Tertullian® 
says expressly, ‘ that every rash and vain oath did not bring a 
man under the discipline of public penance, but was reckoned 
among the sins of daily incursion, for which private repentance 
was appointed.’ And St. Chrysostom, who is most vehement 
and severe against this vice, does not threaten men with ex- 
communication for every single act of it, but for obstinate 
continuance in the custom and practice of it after sufficient ad- 
monition. Having preached a whole Lent against swearing to 
the people of Antioch, he thus concludes his last discourse? : 
‘The forty days of Lent are already past; if Easter passes 
likewise without reforming this wicked custom, I will thence- 
forward pardon no man, nor use any longer admonition, but 
commanding authority and sharpness not to be despised. It 
is no just apology in this case to plead custom. For why may 
not the robber as well plead custom, and thereby excuse him- 
self from punishment? and why may not the murderer and 
adulterer do the same? Therefore I protest and denounce be- 
forehand, that if I apprehend any, who have not corrected this 
vice, I will inflict punishment upon them, and order them to be 


But only 
the custom 
of vain and 
common 
swearing. 


3 De Pudicit. c.19. See before, διὰ τῆς συνηθείας. Διὰ τί ὃ κλέπτων 


ch: 3. 8. 14. p. 183. 1. 50. 

4 Hom. 22. [Bened. 20.] ad Pop. 
Antioch. t. 1. p. 294. (t. 2. p. 213 b.) 
Τεσσαράκοντα λοιπὸν ἡμέραι παρῆλ- 
Oov' ἂν τοίνυν τὸ Πάσχα παρέλθη τὸ 
ἱερὸν, οὐδενὶ συγγνώσομαι λοιπὸν, οὐ- 
δὲ παραίνεσιν προσάξω, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιτα- 
γὴν, καὶ ἀποτομίαν ἀκαταφρόνητον. 
Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἰσχυρὰ αὕτη ἡ ἀπολογία, ἡ 


οὐ προβάλλεται συνήθειαν, καὶ ἀπαλ- 
λάττεται κολάσεως : 3 διὰ τί ὁ φονεύων 
καὶ μοιχεύων ; Πᾶσι τοίνυν προλέγω 
καὶ διαμαρτύρομαι, ὅτι ἂν συγγενό- 
μενος ὑμῖν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, καὶ λαβὼν ἀπό- 
πειραν, λήψομαι δὲ πάντως, καὶ εὕρω 
τινὰς μὴ διορθώσαντας τὸ ἐλάττωμα, 
ἀπαιτήσω δίκην, κελεύσας ἔξω μένειν 
μυστηρίων τῶν ἱερῶν. 


357 


§ 5, 6. profane swearing, §°c. 


excluded from the participation of the holy mysteries.’ So 
again, in another Homily> to the people of Antioch: ‘ For this 
sin we mourn and lament: but if I find any to persist in it, I 
will exclude them from entering the doors of the church and 
partaking of the heavenly mysteries. Nor let any one think to 
insult me by the help of his riches or power. Those things are 
no more to me than a mere fable, a shadow, or a dream. No 
rich man will be able to be my advocate, when I am accused 
before God’s tribunal, that I did not with all my power and 
might assert and vindicate the laws of God by punishing the 
transgressors of them.’ 

6. Another transgression of this command was swearing by And swear- 
the creatures. The fourth Council of Carthage® orders a cler- με diiher 
gyman, that was found guilty of this crime, to be first sharply 
reproved, and if he persist in his fault, to be excommunicated. 
St. Jerom? says, our Saviour prohibited it in those words, 
“ Thou shalt not swear by heaven, nor by earth, nor Jerusalem, 
nor by thy head.” [Matth. 5, 34—36.] And there goes a de- 
cree’, under the name of Pope Pius I., which forbids men not 
only to swear by the hair, or head of God, or any other such 
blasphemous oaths, but by the creature, under the penalty of 
excommunication. 

But because this may seem to contradict what they said be- 
fore 9, ‘ that a man might lawfully swear by the emperor’s safety ;’ 
we are to consider, that in such oaths they did not properly 
swear by the creatures, invoking them as witnesses of the truth 
of what they said, but only naming them with some relation to 


5 Hom. 22. in Matth. p. 182. (t. 


jurgandum. Si perstiterit in vitio, 
7. Pp. 233 a.) Διὸ καὶ ἡμεῖς θρηνοῦμεν 


excommunicandum. 


καὶ ddvpdpeba’ κἂν ἐπιμένοντας ἴδω, 
ἀπαγορεύσω λοιπὸν ὑμῖν τῶν ἱερῶν 
τούτων ἐπιβῆναι προθύρων, καὶ [ὑμῖν] 
τῶν ἀθανάτων μετασχεῖν μυστηρίων. 
..+-My μοί τις πλούσιος, μή μοί τις 
δυνάστης ἐνταῦθα φυσάτω, καὶ τὰς 
ὀφρῦς ἀνασπάτω"᾽ πάντά μοι ταῦτα 
μῦθος, καὶ σκιὰ, καὶ ὄναρ᾽ Οὐδεὶς γὰρ 
τῶν νῦν πλουτούντων ἐκεῖ μου προ- 
στήσεται, ὅταν ἐγκαλοῦμαι καὶ κατη- 
γοροῦμαι ὡς μὴ κατὰ [4]. μετὰ] τῆς 
προσηκούσης σφοδρότητος τοὺς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ διεκδικήσας νόμους. 

6 C. 61 (t. 2. p. 1205 a.) Clericum 
per creaturas jurantem, acerrime ob- 


In Matth. ον (t: 7. p. πὸ δ). 
Considera quod hic Salvator non 
per Deum jurare prohibuerit, sed 
per σα] απ, et terram, et Hierosoly- 
mam, et per caput tuum. 

8 Ap. Gratian. caus. 22. queest. I. 
c. 10. (t. 1. p. 1245. 66.) Si quis per 
capillum Dei vel caput juraverit, vel 
alio modo blasphemia contra Deum 
usus fuerit; si ecclesiastico ordine 
est, deponatur ; si laicus, anathema- 
tizetur. Et si quis per creaturam 
juraverit, acerrime castigetur, &c. 

® See before, 8. 4. p.351, and nn. 
79, 85, preceding. 


358 The great crimes, 


God, by whom they swore. 


Which, as learned men® observe, 


may lawfully be done two ways :— 

1. In execratory oaths, when a man devotes any creature, 
in which he himself has some right and property, and as it 
were oppignorates it to the severe vengeance of God, the 
Judge, if he swear falsely. Thus a man may, in a serious mat- 
ter, devote his head, his soul, his children, or any other thing 
belonging to him, if he knowingly forswear himself. Such 
examples of oaths we have in Scripture, which respect God 
always directly as witness and judge, and the creature only as 
something dear to us. which we are willing to pawn, to certify 


8 Vid. Rivet. in Decalog. p. 126. 
(t.1. p.1287. col. dextr.) Est species 
juramenti, in qua agnoscimus crea- 
turee nomen posse adhiberi sensu 
commodo, sine ulla Dei contumelia, 
et sine idololatriz suspicione, idque 
duobus modis. 1. In juramento ex- 
secratorio, cum quis creaturam ad 
se pertinentem quasi devovet, Dei- 
que judicis severe ultioni velut op- 
pignorat, nisi verum dicat. Sic pot- 
est aliquis in re seria, caput, ani- 
mam, filios, et reliqua ad se pertinen- 
tia, quantum in ipso est, devovere, 
si sciens fallat. In talibus enim non 
jurat per eas res; sed tantum ag- 
noscit coram Deo, se dignum esse, 
qui in illis puniatur, si pejeret. Ta- 
lia in Scripturis habemus juramenti 
exempla, que Deum semper directe 
tanquam testem et judicem respi- 
ciunt; creaturam autem tanquam 
rem nobis caram, quam non dubita- 
mus oppignorare, ut ex eo proximus 
certus sit, nos in perniciem pro- 
priam, aut rerum, que nobis sint in 
pretio, nolle fallere. Si jurat David, 
(Ps. 7,3-5.) Si fect istud, et si est ini- 
quitas in manibus meis, persequatur 
inimicus animam meam. Et Paulus, 
(2 ad Cor. 1,23.) Testem Deum invoco 
im animam meam. Sic jurabant per 
caput suum, id est, illud devove- 
bant. Unde illud apud Grecos, Νὴ 
τὴν κεφαλήν. Et apud Virgilium, 
(ποιά. 9.) Per caput hoe juro: hoc 
est, immineat capiti meo periculum, 
si sciens fallam. Hic modus usur- 
pande creature in re seria et vera 
licitus est, quia in eo non proprie 
consistit juramentum, sed ejus que- 


dam appendix. 2. Alter modus est, 
cum quis earum rerum meminit in 
jurejurando, que quidem non sunt 
in ejus potestate constitute, ac pro- 
inde nec eas potest devovere; sed 
tales sunt, quarum apud eum ratio 
haberi in primis debet, inter res hu- 
manas; et quarum meminit, non ut 
eas testes veritatis advocet, aut illis 
deferat honorem juramenti, vel ali- 
qua ex parte: sed ut per compara- 
tionem sui in eas res affectus, et de- 
bite civilis reverentie, testetur ho- 
minibus coram Deo, quam serio a- 
gat, cum loquitur. Sic jurabant ve- 
teres Christiani, Tertulliano teste, 
(Apol. c. 22.) per salutem imperato- 
ris, qui per ejusdem genium jurare 
renuebant. Vel per salutem impe- 
ratoris intelligentes ipsum Deum, 
salutis auctorem, et qui salus impe- 
ratoris dici poterat effective; vel ut 
esset potius obtestatio, quam jura- 
mentum proprie dictum, per com- 
parationem, hoc sensu; Testor co- 
ram Deo, non mihi minus cordi esse 
in ea re veritatem, quam mihi cordi 
est imperatoris salus: aut simile 
hujusmodi. ‘Talia juramenta po- 
tius sunt obtestationes, de quibus 
Basilius ad Psalm. 14: Sunt qui- 
dam sermones, speciem quidem jura- 
menti habentes, qui tamen non sunt, 
sed obtestatio ad eos, qui audiunt. 
Huc referri potest juramentum Jo- 
sephi, Gen. 42, 15. Vivit Pharao. 
Ubi Vetus Interpres habet, per sa- 
lutem Pharaonis: LXX. autem Νὴ 
τὴν ὑγίειαν Φαραὼ, per salutem aut 
sanitatem Pharaonis : id est, Quam 
mihi cordi est salus Pharaonis, &e. 


XVI. vii. 


eo 6  ΔΑΖΒΞΞεθωΝΝοΝΣ 


86. 


profane swearing, Sc. 359 


our neighbour thereby, that we intend not to deceive him, to 
the destruction of ourselves, or any things that are highly 
valued by us. Thus David swears, (Psal. 7, 3-5.) “ If I have 
done any such thing, O Lord my God, or if there be any 
wickedness in my hands, then let my enemy persecute my 
soul.” So St. Paul, (2 Cor. 1, 23.) “I call God for a record 
upon my soul.” And thus men were used to swear by their 
head, devoting it to a curse if they wittingly falsified. This 
way of using the name of a creature in an oath is reputed law- 
ful; because this is not properly the oath, but only an ap- 
pendix of it. 

2. The other way of mentioning the creature in an oath, 
without swearing by them, is, when by a testification of the 
civil respect and affection they have for them, they likewise 
signify, in the presence of God, the truth of what they say to 
men, that it is as certainly true, as they certainly and un- 
doubtedly wish the wealth and prosperity of such a creature or 
person. Thus Joseph, when he swore by God, mentioned the 
life of Pharaoh, (Gen. 42, 15.) which the Vulgar Latin renders, 
per salutem Pharaonis, from the Septuagint, νὴ τὴν ὑγίειαν 
Φαραὼ, by the safety of Pharaoh: which is the same form that, 
as we have seen before9, the primitive Christians used, when 
they inserted the words per salutem imperatoris into their 
ordinary oaths, conceived in the name of God only. For nei- 
ther of these is intended to swear by the creatures, but to 
testify, in the presence of God, that what they asserted was as 
certainly true as they wished the safety of Pharaoh, or the 
emperor, or as certainly as they were in health and in being. 
For such forms may be taken either by way of prayer, or of 
asseveration and protestation ; where the protestation is plainly 
expressed, but that which is properly the oath in the name of 
God is covertly understood. And in this sense both the ancient 
Christians and Joseph are to be understood. For as St. 
Basil!° observes, ‘ there are some modes of expression which 
seem to be oaths, but are not properly oaths, but only asse- 
yerations, to confirm the truth to men:’ he instances in that 


9 See 8. 4. p. 351- yor, σχήματα μὲν ὅρκων ἔχοντες, OVX 
In Ps. 14. t. 1. p. 133. ({. 1. ὅρκοι δὲ ὄντες, ἀλλὰ θεραπεία πρὸς 
part. 2. p.505 4.) Εἰσὶ δέ τινες Ad- τοὺς ἀκούοντας. 


360 The great crimes, XVI. vii 


of Joseph, who sware, νὴ τὴν ὑγίειαν Φαραὼ, by the safety of 
Pharaoh. 


And by the 1. But the case was otherwise when men swore directly by 


emperor's 
genius, and 
saints and they were false and perfidious in their deposition. 


angels. 


any creatures, as judges and revengers of their thoughts, if 
Therefore, 
though the Christians admitted the naming of the emperor’s 
safety in their oaths, they would never swear by the emperor’s 
genius, because this was idolatry, and in effect apostatizing to 
Heathenism, and renouncing the Christian religion. The per- 
secutors required no more of them but this, as a testimony of 
their renunciation. In the Passion of Polycarp, recorded by 
Eusebius", the proconsul required him frequently to swear by 
the emperor’s genius: to which he constantly replied, ‘ that 
he was a Christian.’ So in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 15 
in Afric, the judge bids them ‘only swear by the emperor’s 
genius, and that should pass for an acknowledgment of the 
Gentile religion: but they answered, ‘We know nothing of 
the emperor’s genius, but we worship and serve the God of 
heaven.’ The like is said by Origen!?; ‘ We swear not by 
the emperor’s fortune or genius: for whether fortune be only 
a casual thing, as some repute it, we swear not by that as a 
god, which is nothing in the world, lest we should apply the 
power of an oath to that which we ought not; or whether for- 
tune be one of the demons, as others say, we rather choose to 
die than swear by an impious and wicked devil.’ The like is 
said by Minucius'4; ‘that it was peculiar to the Heathens to 


Ui) Die hea oP 15. p. 181. (v. I. Ρ. ἃ μὴ δεῖ παραλαμβάνομεν" εἴτε καὶ, 
167. 23.}... «-Ὅμοσον τὴν Καίσαρος ὥς τισιν ἔδοξεν, εἰποῦσι τοῦ Ῥω- 


τὰν Owe a a ‘ei 


μαίων βασιλέως τὸν “δαίμονα ὀμνῦσιν 


τυχήν. 
12 Ap. Baron. an. 202. n. 2. (t. 2. οἱ τὴν τύχην αὐτοῦ ὀμνύοντες, δαιμό- 
p- 280 c.) Proconsul dixit....Tan- vey ἐστὶν ἡ ὀνομαζομένη τύχη τοῦ 


tum jura per genium regis nostri. 
Speratus dixit, Ego imperatoris 
mundi genium nescio, sed ccelesti 
Deo meo servio. 
'3 Cont. Cels. 1. 8. p. 421. (t. 

Ρ. 79° e.) Τύχην μέν τοι ΡΣ τ 
οὐκ ὄμνυμεν, ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἄλλον νομιζόμε- 
νον Θεόν" εἴτε γὰρ, ὡς ὠνόμασάν τινες, 
ἐκφορὰ μόνον ἐστὶν ἡ TUXN.... Οὐκ 
ὄμνυμεν τὸ μηδαμῶς ὃν ὡς Θεὸν, ἢ 
ὅλως ὑφεστηκὸς καὶ δυνάμενόν τι ποι- 
Hoar, ἵνα μὴ τὴν ὀμοτικὴν δύναμιν εἰς 


βασιλέως" καὶ οὕτως ἀποθανατέον ἐ ἐστὶ 
μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ ὀμόσαι μοχ- 
θηρὰν δαίμονα καὶ ἄπιστον, πολλάκις 
συνεξαμαρτάνοντα ᾧ ᾧ ἔλαχεν ἀνθρώπῳ, 
ἢ καὶ πλέον αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα.---- 
[ Conf. Exhort. ad Martyr. n. 7. 
(ibid. p. 278 ἃ, 6.) ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ εἴπερ 
πᾶν ῥῆμα, κ.τ. ἃ: Ep. ] 
14 Octav. p. 88. (c. 29. p. 148.) 
. Genium, id est, damonem ejus 
implorant ; et est eis tutius per 
vis genium pejerare quam regis. 


§ 7. 


profane swearing, Sc. 361 


swear by the emperor’s genius, that is, his demon ; and that it 
was safer to forswear themselves by the genius of Jupiter than 
the genius of the emperor.’ Tertullian! says, ‘ Christians 
absolutely refused to swear by this form, though they scrupled 
not to swear by the emperor's safety. But the Heathen rebels 
were used to swear by the emperor’s genius!®, at the same 
time that they were plotting treason against him:’ which 
he frequently retorts upon them, because they were used to 
charge Christians as traitors!7, because they would not swear 
by the emperor’s genius. The nature of this crime, then, we 
see, was plainly idolatry and apostasy, in giving divine honour 
to a demon instead of God, and thereby renouncing at once 
the Christian religion. Whatever penalties therefore were im- 
posed on idolaters and apostates, the same we may conclude to 
have been the punishment of those who in times of persecution 
complied with the demands of the Heathen, to swear by the 
emperor’s genius or demon, which was to give divine honour 
to creatures, and the worst of creatures, the apostate angels, 
who were in professed rebellion against God. 

To swear by good angels, or saints, or the Virgin Mary, or 
their images and relics, though it had a more specious pre- 
tence, was not much short of the former vice. For, all divine 
worship being appropriated to God by the doctrine of the An- 
cients, and the taking of an oath being one solemn act of that 
worship, they were no more disposed to swear by an angel or 
a saint than by the emperor’s genius, or any other thing that 
might reasonably be interpreted a conferring the honour of 
God upon the creature. Therefore Optatus 18 objects it to the 

15 Apol. c. 32. 


See before, 5. 4. qui Christianos seepe damnaverant, 


P- 251: n. 80. 
Cassii et Nigri et Albini?....Om- 


aciebant pro 
salute imperatoris, et genium ejus 
dejerabant.—Ad Scap. c. 2. (p.69 b.) 
Sic et circa majestatem imperatoris 
infamamur ; tamen nunquam Albini- 
ani, nec Nigriani, vel Cassiani inve- 
niri potuerunt Christiani: sed iidem 
ipsi, qui per genios eorum in pridie 
usque juraverant, qui pro salute eo- 
rum hostias et fecerant et voverant, 


hostes eorum sunt reperti. 

17 Ad Nationes, 1. 1. δ᾽ 17. (p. 
51d.) Prima obstinatio est, qux 
secunda ab eis religio constituitur 
Cesariane majestatis, quod irreli- 
giosi dicamur in Cesares, neque 
imagines eorum repropitiando, ne- 
que genios dejerando, hostes populi 
puncupamur. 

18 L. 3. p. 65. (p. 68.) Cum per 
solum Deum soleant homines ju- 
rare, passus est homines per se sic 
jurare, tanquam per Deum. 


- 


362 The great crimes, XVI. vii. 


Donatists, as a great piece of insolence and impiety, ‘ that 
whereas men ought to swear only by God alone, Donatus suf- 
fered those of his party to swear by himself as a God.’ And 
his successors as greedily embraced this honour ; for Optatus!9 
charges the same impiety upon them all in general : ‘ The peo- 
ple swear by you, and are now commonly known to put your 
persons in the place of God. Men are used to name the name 
of God in oaths to confirm their faith or veracity: but while 
they swear by you, there is no mention of God or Christ among 
your party. If divine religion be transplanted from heaven to 
you, seeing men swear by your name, why do you not assume 
the power of preventing all diseases in yourselves, and those of 
your party? Let no one die: command the clouds: rain, if 
you can: that men may swear more perfectly by your name, 
and take no notice of God. O sacrilegium impietati commix- 
tum! O the sacrilege and impiety that concur together in 
your actions! whilst you willingly hear men swear by your 
names, and let not the name of God be once mentioned in your 
ears!’ He says further2°, ‘that they were used to swear by 
their pretended martyrs, though they were men that suffered 
for their crimes, and not for the cause of religion;’ by which it 
is evident, that in the time of Optatus, to swear by the name 
of a man, whether living or dead, was reckoned no less a crime 
than sacrilege and impiety, as transferring the honour of God 
upon the creature. And, consequently, the same punishment 
that was due to sacrilege and impiety must be supposed to be 
the punishment of this crime in all those that were guilty of 
it; though we read of few besides these heretics in those days 
that were disposed to run into it, till the worship of saints, and 
angels, and the Virgin Mary, began to creep into the Church ; 
and then, together with that corruption, came in this other of 


19 L. 2. p. 58. (p. 53.) ... Per vos 
jurant, et personas vestras jam pro 
Deo habere noscuntur. Solet Deus 
ad probandam fidem in juratione ab 
hominibus nominari. Sed cum per 
vos juratur, jam apud vestros de 
Deo et Christo silentium est. Si ad 
vos divina migravit de ceelo religio, 
quia per vos juratur, nemo vestrum 
aut vestrorum langueat: nolite mori: 
imperate nubibus: pluite, si potestis: 


ut per vos plenius juretur, et de 
Deo sileatur. ...O sacrilegium im- 
pietati commixtum! dum homines 
per vos jurantes libenter auditis, et 
vocem Dei auribus non admittitis 
vestris. 

20 L. 3. Ῥ. 69. (p. 78:) -.-- Quos 
vos inter martyres ponitis, per quos, 
tanquam per unicam_ religionem, 
vestre communionis homines ju- 
rant. 


§ 7. 


profane swearing, Sc. 363 


joining the Virgin Mary, and the archangels Michael and Ga- 
briel, in the same oath with God. The form of which sort of 
oaths we have in one of Justinian’s Novels?!, which obliges 
every governor of a province to take an oath of allegiance, and 
an oath against bribery, or corrupt entrance into his office, in 
this form: ‘I swear by God Almighty and his only begotten 
Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and the most 
holy glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and by 
the four Gospels, which I hold in my hand, and by the holy 
archangels Michael and Gabriel, that I will keep a pure con- 
science, and pay faithful and true allegiance to their most sa- 
ered majesties Justinian and Theodora his consort, who put me 
into this office. And I swear by the same oath, that I neither 
gave, nor will give, nor promised to give, any thing to any 
one whatsoever for his patronage or assistance in procuring me 
this administration ; but, as I received it without bribery, so I 
will execute it with purity, being content with the public salary 
that is appointed me.’ The matter of this oath is exceeding 
good, but it must be confessed the form of it is a deviation 
from the purity and simplicity of former ages, when oaths were 
only made in the name of God, as a speciality of divine worship 
peculiarly belonging to him. This is the first instance I re- 
member of any oath of this kind allowed in the Church: and 
it serves to show in how short a time corruptions may gain 
ground by authority; for that which was reputed sacrilege 
and impiety in the time of Optatus, was now become an in- 
stance of singular devotion to the archangels and the Virgin 
Mary. 


21 Novel. 8. c.1. (t.5. p.9g.) Jus- niano et Theodore conjugi ejus, 


jurandum quod prestatur ab his, 
qui administrationem accipiunt. Ju- 
ro ergo [leg? ego] per Deum Om- 
nipotentem, et Filium ejus Unige- 
nitum, Dominum nostrum Jesum 
Christum, et Spiritum Sanctum, et 
per sanctam gloriosam Dei Genetri- 
cem et semper Virginem Mariam, 
et per Quatuor Evangelia, que in 
manibus meis teneo, et per sanctos 
archangelos Michaelem et Gabrie- 
lem, puram conscientiam, germa- 
numque servitium me servaturum 
sacratissimis nostris dominis Justi- 


occasione traditz mihi ab eorum 
pietate administrationis: et omnem 
laborem, ac sudorem cum favore 
sine dolo, et sine arte quacunque 
suscipio in commissa mihi ab eis 
administratione de eorum imperio 
atque republica, .... Juro quoque 
idem jusjurandum: quia nulli peni- 
tus neque dedi, neque dabo occa- 
sione dati mihi cinguli, neque occa- 
sione patrocinii, neque promisi;... 
sed, sicut sine suffragio precepi 
cingulum, sic etiam pura me ex- 
hibebo cirea subjectos, &c, 


364: The great crimes, XVI. vii. 


There are many other things might be noted concerning 
oaths; but here I only speak of such things as relate to the 
discipline of the Church. 


Of perjury 8. The next great crime that might be committed against 
amt the name and majesty of God was perjury; which might be 
ment. committed either at the time of taking the oath, by swearing 


to a false thing, or swearing to do some wicked or unlawful 
thing; or else afterward, by not performing what a man law- 
fully might, when he was solemnly engaged upon oath to do it. 
He that swore to do an unlawful thing, as suppose to live in per- 
petual enmity with another man, and never be reconciled to 
him, was by the Council of Lerida?2 to be cast out of com- 
munion a whole year for his perjury, and obliged to repent of 
his unlawful oath, and be reconciled to his brother. For in 
this case, as the Fathers and Canons determine23, the unlawful 
oath was not to be kept, lest it should involve him, like Herod, 
in a double or triple sin; but he was to rescind his oath, and 
repent of his perjury, which was better than to add one sin to 
another, under pretence of piety and religion. In this case 
the penance was so much the shorter, because men were sup- 
posed by some hasty passion to be involved rashly in this guilt, 
and not by any settled consideration. 

But in other cases, perjury in attesting a false thing, or not 
performing a lawful oath, was more severely treated. For 
Chrysostom 2+ reckons perjury in the same class with murder, 
fornication, and adultery. And St. Basil2° imposes eleven 
years’ penance upon those that were guilty of it: ‘The per- 


22 C. 7. (t. 4. p. 1612 c.) Quisa- (t.7 
cramento se obligaverit, ut litigans 
cum quolibet ad pacem nullo modo 
redeat, pro perjurio uno anno a 
communione corporis et sanguinis 


- P- 220 6.) Morxeia τοίνυν ἐνο- 
pioby νῦν τὸ τοιοῦτον, k.T.A. [Hom. 
22. de Ira. t. 4. p. 204.) [ juxt. Ed. 
Bened. ad Pop. Antioch. Hom. zo.] 
(t.2. p. 211 d.).... Eidey 6 Θεὸς, 6 ὅτι 


Dominici segregatus, reatum suum 
fletibus, eleemosynis, et quantis po- 
tuerit jejuniis absolvat [al. abluat]. 

23 Mid. 0. Tolet./8.. ex 121, (026. 
pp- 399, Seqq.) where the testimonies 
of St. Ambrose, St. Austin, Gregory, 
and Isidore, are cited at large to 
this purpose. As also in Gratian, 
caus, 22. quest. 4. (t. I. pp. 1263- 
1270.) Quod autem illicita yuramen- 
ta servari non debeant, Sc. 

24 Hom. 17. in Matth. p. 182. 


ἀπέστησαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν 
αὐτῶν τῶν πονηρῶν" οὐκ εἶπεν, ὅτι 
ἀπὸ πορνείας, ἢ μοιχείας, ἢ κλοπῆς, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν αὐτῶν τῶν 
πονηρῶν, κατ. ἃ. Ep. ] 

25 C. 64. (CC. t. 2. p. 1349 50 
*Exiopxos ev δέκα ἔτεσιν ἀκοινώνητος 
ἔσται" δυσὶν ἔτεσι προσκλαίων, τρισὶν 
ἀκροώμενος, τέσσαρσιν ὑποπίπτων, 
ἐνιαυτὸν συνεστὼς μόνον, καὶ τότε 
τῆς κοινωνίας ἀξιούμενος. 


a 


perjury, Se. 365 


jured person shall be a mourner two years, an hearer three, a 
prostrator four, a co-stander one.’ The first Council of Mas- 
con26 orders those that drew others into false witness or per- 
jury, ‘to be cast out of communion to the hour of death ;’ and 
those that were so drawn in, ‘to be for ever after incapable of 
giving testimony, and to be noted as infamous persons accord- 
ing to the laws: meaning probably the laws of the State, as 
well as the laws of the Church. For, as Gothofred shows at 
large, the civil law under the old Romans set the brand of in- 
famy upon all such perjured persons; and Honorius added 
several other penalties to give new vigour to the ancient laws?’, 
and make them more effectual. 

I cannot here omit the relation which Eusebius?$ gives of 
the divine vengeance pursuing three perjured villains, who 
combined together to swear to a false accusation, which they 
had plotted beforehand against Narcissus bishop of Jerusalem; 
because it shows that when church-discipline cannot take effect 
for want of evidence against the criminal, Providence is some- 
times pleased to interpose, and revenge this crime by an im- 
mediate divine judgment. ‘Three men,’ he says, ‘who were 
afraid to be called in question by the bishop, and punished for 
their wicked lives, resolved to be beforehand with him, by con- 
triving and bringing an heavy accusation against him. And to 


26 Ὁ. τῇ. (t.5. Ρ. 970 d.) Si quis 
convictus fuerit alios ad falsum 
testimonium vel perjurium attrax- 
isse ....ipse quidem usque ad exi- 
tum non communicet: hi vero, qui 
ei in perjurio consensisse probantur, 
post ab omni sunt testimonio pro- 
hibendi, et secundum legem infamia 
notabuntur. 

27 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. 2. tit. 9. 
de Pactis, leg. 8. (t.1. p. 133-) Si 
quis major annis adversus pacta vel 
transactiones, nullo cogentis impe- 
rio, sed libero arbitrio et voluntate 
confecta, putaverit esse veniendum, 
vel interpellando judicem, vel sup- 
plicando principibus, vel non im- 
plendo promissa ea, que, invocato 
nomine Dei Omnipotentis, eo auctore 
solidaverit ; non solum inuratur in- 
famia, verum etiam actione privatus, 
restituta poena, que pactis probatur 
inserta, earum rerum et proprietate 
careat et emolumento, quod ex pacto 


vel transactione illa fuerit consecu- 
tus. Quz omnia mox eorum com- 
modo deputabuntur, qui intemerati 
pacti jura servaverint.— Vid. Gotho- 
fred. in loc. (pp. 134-137.) De per- 
jurii peenis, &c. 

28 Lib. 6. c. g. (v. I. p. 267. 4.) 
Τὸ εὔτονον αὐτοῦ καὶ στερρὸν τοῦ 
βίου φαυλοί τινες ἀνθρωπίσκοι μὴ 
οἷοί τε φέρειν, δέει τοῦ μὴ δίκην 
ὑποσχεῖν ἁλόντας, διὰ τὸ μυρία κακὰ 
ἑαυτοῖς συνειδέναι, συσκευὴν κατ᾽ av- 
τοῦ προλαβόντες συρράπτουσι, καί 
τινα δεινὴν καταχέουσιν αὐτοῦ δια- 
βολήν᾽ εἶτα, πιστούμενοι τοὺς ἀκρο- 
ὡμένους, ὅρκοις ἐβεβαίουν τὰς κατη- 
γορίας" καὶ ὁ μὲν ἦ μὴν ἀπόλοιτο πυρὶ 
ὥμνυεν᾽ ὁ δὲ ἢ μὴν σκαιᾷ νόσῳ δα- 
πανηθείη τὸ σῶμα' ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἦ μὴν 
τὰς ὁράσεις πηρωθείη. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ 
οὕτως αὐτοῖς καίπερ ὀμνύουσὶ τῶν 
πιστῶν τις προσεῖχε τὸν νοῦν, διὰ 
τὴν εἰς πάντας λάμπουσαν ἐκ τοῦ 
παντὸς σωφροσύνην τε καὶ πανάρετον 


366 The great crimes. XVI. vii. 


gain credit to their accusation before the Church they each 
confirmed it with a solemn oath. One of them wished that if 
he swore falsely he might perish by fire; another, that his 
body might be consumed by some pestilential disease ; and the 
third, that he might lose his eyes. The Church gave no credit 
to their oaths, as knowing the bishop to be of a clear and un- 
blameable life: however, being not able to bear the calumny, 
and being otherwise of a long time desirous of a retired life, 
he thereupon withdrew into the wilderness, leaving his church, 
to live the life of an hermit. But the great eye of justice did 
not thus suffer the matter to rest, but presently revenged the 
miscreants with the curses they had imprecated upon them- 
selves. For the first by a little spark of fire that casually 
happened in his house, and whereof no one could give any 
account, was in the night himself, family, and house, univer- 
sally burnt to ashes; the second was from the sole of the foot 
to the crown of his head overrun and consumed by the same 
pestilential disease, which he had wished upon himself; and the 
third, seeing what had befallen the other two, and fearing the 
inevitable vengeance of the all-seeing God, confessed the whole 
plot and contrivance of the calumny which they had formed ; 
and he testified his repentance with so deep a sorrow, that 
with the multitude of his tears he lost his sight. Thus these 
perjured wretches were punished by the hand of God, when 
ecclesiastical censure, for want of evidence, could not touch 
them.’ 

9. The last transgression of this commandment, that was 
punished with ecclesiastical censure, was breach of vows, or 
promises solemnly made to God: and this was both in things 
and persons. 


Of breach 
of vows. 


ἀγωγὴν τοῦ Ναρκίσσου. Αὐτός γε κατέμενεν οἰκίας σπινθῆρος, νύκτωρ 


μὴν τὴν τῶν εἰρημένων μηδαμῶς ὑ ὑπο- 
μένων μοχθηρίαν, καὶ ἄλλως ἐκ μα- 
κροῦ τὸν φιλόσοφον ἀσπαζόμενος 
βίον, διαδρὰς πᾶν τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
πλῆθος, ἐν ἐρημίαις καὶ ἀφανέσιν 
ἀγροῖς λανθάνων, πλείστοις ἔ ἔτεσι διέ- 
τριβεν. "ANN οὐ καὶ ὁ τῆς δίκης 
μέγας ὀφθαλμὸς ἐ ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμέ νοις 
ἠρέμει" μετῇει δὲ ὡς τάχιστα τοὺς 
ἀσεβεῖς, αἷς καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐπιορκοῦντες 
κατεδήσαντο ἀραῖς. Ὁ μὲν οὖν πρῶ- 
τος, ἐκ μηδεμίας προφάσεως ἁπλῶς 
οὕτω σμικροῦ διαπεσόντος ἐφ᾽ ἧς 


ὑπαφθείσης ἁπάσης παγγενῆ κατα- 
φλέγεται" 6 be ἀθρόως τὸ σῶμα ἐξ 
ἄκρων ποδῶν ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν, ἧς αὐτὸς 
προσετίμησεν ἑαυτῷ νόσου πίμπλα- 
ται ὃ δὲ τρίτος τὰς τῶν προτέρων 
συνιδὼν ἐκβάσεις, καὶ τοῦ πάντων 
ἐφόρου Θεοῦ τρέσας τὴν ἀδιάδραστον 
δίκην, ὡμολόγει μὲν τοῖς πᾶσι τὰ 
κοινῇ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐσκαιωρημένα" 
τοσαύταις δὲ κατετρύχετο μεταμελό- 
μενος οἰμωγαῖς, δακρύων τε ἐς τοσοῦ- 
τον οὐκ ἀπέλιπεν, ἕως ἄμφω διεφθάρη 
τὰς ὄψεις. 


§ 9. 


breach of vows, Se. 367 


If a man vowed to give his estate, or any part of it, to the 
service of God, it was a breach of vow, including sacrilege, to 
retract it. Ananias was severely censured for this in such an 
extraordinary way by the apostolical rod and mouth of St. 
Peter, as in St. Basil’s29 judgment left him no room for repent- 
ance. The Church in after-ages could not punish such delin- 
quents in that extraordinary manner: but as every such breach 
of vow was a piece of sacrilege, as well as perfidiousness and 
perjury, we may be sure the common penalties, that were in- 
flicted on those two crimes singly, were no less carefully im- 
posed on this crime, where they centred both in combina- 
tion. 

There was also a breach of vow which concerned the dedi- 
cation of persons to God. The clergy were supposed to be 
more peculiarly God’s inheritance, dedicating themselves by a 
solemn act of their own voluntary choice to the ministry of his 
Church: and therefore none of this order were allowed to 
desert their station and turn seculars again, upon the severest 
penalty of excommunication. As appears from the rules of 
the general Council of Chalcedon 80, and the Council of Tours??: 
which the laws of the State confirmed by proper sanctions 
of a civil nature °2, ordering all such deserters to be delivered 
up to the curia of their city, to serve there all their lives ; 
and to forfeit all such estates as they were possessed of to the 
Church or monastery to which they belonged. For the same 
penalties were inflicted on monks and consecrated virgins and 


29 Hom. de Institut. Monach. 
[4]. Sermo Asceticus, inter Mo- 
ralia. | (t. 2. part. I. p. 446 c. n. 2.) 
"Egy yap τῷ ᾿Ανανίᾳ τὴν “ἀρχὴν μὴ 
ἐπαγγείλασθαι τῷ Θεῷ τὴν κτῆσιν" 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην 
ἀπιδὼν δόξαν, τὸ μὲν κτῆμα διὰ τῆς 
ἐπαγγελίας τῷ Θεῷ ἀφιέρωσεν, ἁ ὡς ἂν 
θαυμασθείη παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ 
τῇ φιλοτιμίᾳ, τοῦ τιμήματος δὲ ἐνοσ - 
φίσατο, τοιαύτην ἐκίνησε καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ 
τοῦ Κυρίου τὴν ἀγανάκτησιν, ἧς ὑπη- 
ρέτης ὁ Πέτρος ἦν, ὡς μηδὲ μετανοίας 
προθεσμίαν [4]. θύραν] εὑρεῖν. 

30 C. 7. (t. 4. p. 759 a. ) Τοὺς ἅπαξ 
ἐν κλήρῳ, κατειλεγμένους, ἢ i) καὶ μονά- 
Covras, ἁ ὡρίσαμεν, μήτε ἐπὶ στρατείαν, 

μήτε ἐπὶ ἀξίαν κοσμικὴν ἔρχεσθαι" ἢ 


τοῦτο τολμῶντας, καὶ μὴ μεταμελου- 
μένους, ὥστε ἐπιστρέψαι ἐπὶ τοῦτο, ὃ 
διὰ Θεὸν πρότερον εἵλοντο, ἀναθεμα- 
τίζεσθαι. 

31 Ὁ. 5. (ibid. p. τορι d.) Si quis 
vero clericus, relicto officii sui or- 
dine, laicam voluerit agere vitam, 
vel se militiz tradiderit, excommu- 
nicationis poena feriatur. 

32 Cod. Theod. 1. 16. tit. 2. de 
Episc. leg. 39. (t. 6. p.78.).... Si 
qui professum sacre religionis spon- 
te deliquerit, continuo sibi cum 
curia vindicet.—Cod. Justin. lib. 1. 
tit. 3. de Episc. leg. 54. (t. 4. p. 140.) 
Of which see more, b. 6. ch. 4. s. I. 
Vv. 2. p. 261. 


368 ΧΥ͂Ι. vi. 


The great crimes, 


widows, who by any solemn vow had bid adieu to the world 
and had betaken themselves to the ascetic life. If after this 
they married and returned to a secular life, though the Church 
did not annul ther marriage under the notion of being 
adulterous, which is now commonly done in the Romish com- 
munion, yet she imposed a certain penance upon them, as 
guilty of perfidiousness and breach of vow. The Council of 
Chalcedon®? orders both monks and virgins to be excommuni- 
cated, if they married after their solemn consecration and pro- 
fession. St. Basil#+ says, they were to do the penance of 
fornicators and adulterers. Not that he reckoned their mar- 
riage fornication or adultery, but only to assign the term of 
their penance. For as we have shown elsewhere®®, out of St. 
Austin®®, such marriages were never reputed adultery, but 
true marriages, and therefore not annulled by any rule of the 
ancient Church, though now by the authority of the Coun- 
cil of Trent the contrary practice prevails in the Romish 
Church, where all such marriages are reversed, and the parties 


obliged to separate from one another. 


33 C. τό. (t. 4. p. 763 b.) Παρ- 
θένον ἑαυτὴν ἀναθεῖσαν τῷ Δεσπότῃ 
Θεῷ, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ μονάζοντα, μὴ 
ἐξεῖναι γάμῳ. προσομιλεῖν" εἰ δέ γε 
εὑρεθεῖεν τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, ἔστωσαν 
ἀκοινώνητοι.---ΟΟ. Tolet. 4. c. 51. (t. 
5. p- 1718 a.) Nonnulli monacho- 
rum, egredientes a monasterio, non 
solum ad seculum revertuntur, sed 
etiam uxores accipiunt. Hi igitur 
revocati, in eodem monasterio, a 
quo exierunt, peenitentiz deputen- 
tur, ibique defleant crimina sua, un- 
de decesserunt.— Leo, Ep. 92. ad 
Rustic. c. 12. (CC. t.3. p. 1407 e.) 
Contrarium est omnino ecclesiasticis 
regulis, post pcenitentiz actionem 
redire ad militiam szcularem, cum 
Apostolus dicat: Nemo militans Deo 
implicet se mnegotiis secularibus. 
Unde non est liber a laqueis Dia- 
boli, qui se militia mundana voluerit 


implicare.—C. Ancyr. c. 19. (t. I. 
p. 1464 b.) Ὅσοι παρθενίαν ἐπαγγεὰλ- 

λόμενοι ἀθετοῦσι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, τὸν 
τῶν διγάμων ὅρον ἐκπληρούτωσαν. 

34 Ep. Canonic. c. 60. fap. Oper. 
Basil. Ep. 217. Canonic. Tert,] (CC. 
t.2. p. 1349 [corrige, 1749] b.) ‘H 
παρθενίαν [4]. παρθένος] ὁμολογήσα- 
σα, καὶ ἐκπεσοῦσα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, 
τὸν χρόνον τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς μοιχείας dpap- 
τήματος ἐν TH οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς καθ᾽ éav- 
τὴν ζωῆς πληρώσει τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ 
τῶν βίον μονάζοντα ἐπαγγελλομένων 
και ἐΕΚπιπΤΟΥΡΤων. 

35 B. 7. ch. 3. s. 23. Vv. 2. p. 304. 

36 De Bono Viduitat. c. το. (t. 6. 
Ρ- 375 1.) Proinde qui dicunt talium 
nuptias, sed potius adulteria, non 
mihi videntur satis acute ac diligen- 
ter considerare, quid dicant: fallit 
eos quippe similitudo veritatis, &c. 


violation of the Lord’s day. 369 


emer. ὙΠ: 


Of sins against the Fourth Commandment, or violations of 

the law enjoining the religious observation of the Lord’s- 

day. 

1. Someruine has already been noted concerning the reli- Absenting 
gious observation of the Lord’s-day in a former Book 88, and ae 
more will be said hereafter, when we come to speak of the ape - 
festivals, of which this was always reckoned the principal in day, how 
the Christian Church. Here therefore our present subject agree 
only requires us to remark such violations of the law enjoining of the 
the religious observation of the Lord’s-day, as made men liable ΡΟ. 
to ecclesiastical censure. 

And, first, it being a rule that men should meet together to 

celebrate all divine offices in public on the Lord’s-day, the 
voluntary absenting from this service, either in whole or in 
part, was ever reputed a crime worthy of ecclesiastical censure. 
To absent wholly. as heretics and schismatics did, by a chosen 
separation, though they met in private conventicles of their 
own, was esteemed such a violation of the law, as the Church 
thought fit to punish with the severest censure of anathema: 
as appears from seyeral canons of the Council of Gangra%9, 
which having been related at length before 40, I need not here 
repeat them. 

Secondly, if men, who were otherwise orthodox, neglected 
for any considerable time to frequent the church on the 
Lord’s-day, this was a misdemeanour deserving to be cor- 
rected by a judicial suspension from the communion. This 
may be seen in the canons of the Councils of Eliberis 41, Sar- 
dica 42, and Trullo 42, which for the same reason I forbear to 
recite. 

2. Thirdly, to frequent some part of divine service on the Of fre- 
Lord’s-day, and neglect or withdraw from the rest, was in arnt 


those days a crime of a very high nature, and punishable with of the 
Ph « ee This δι Ἔ f tl allel δὰ Lord’s-day 
excommunication. 115. is evident from those called the Apo- service, and 


38 B. 13. ch. 9. 8.1. ν. 4, p.523. 19. πη. 37, seqq. 

7 OC. 5, 6, 7, &e. (t.. 3. ὃν 410 41 C. 21. See ibid. p. 21. n. 48. 
a, Ὁ.) Εἴ τις διδάσκοι, x. 7. X. 42 C. rr. See ibid. ἢ. 49. 

# Ch. 1. 8. 5, of this Book, p. 43 C. 80. See ibid. n. 50. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. Bb 


370 The great crimes, XVI. viii. 
stolical Canons, one ‘4 of which orders, ‘ that all communicants 
who came to church to hear the sermon and the Scriptures 
read, but did not stay to join in the prayers and receive the 
eucharist, should be suspended, as authors of confusion and 
disorder in the church.’ The same is decreed in the Council 
of Antioch 45 in the same terms, and under the same penalty. 
The Council of Eliberis 16 forbids the bishop to receive the 
oblations of such as did not communicate. Which was in effect 
to exclude them from the communion of the Church. And the 
first Council of Toledo 47 orders ‘such as come to church, but 
neglect to frequent the communion, to be admonished ; and if 
upon admonition they amend not, then to put them under 
public penance as great offenders.’ And another canon 43 of 
the same Council adds, ‘ that if any present themselves to the 
communion, and take the eucharist at the hands of the priest, 
and yet forbear to eat it, they shall be driven out of the 
church as sacrilegious persons.’ 

All these canons suppose, what we have fully evinced in a 
former Book 49, that the celebration of the eucharist was a 
standing part οἵ divine service every Lord’s-day ; and that 
every Christian communicant, who was not under penance, was 
obliged to partake thereof, to fulfil the duty he owed to God 
upon this day: and therefore all such as neglected this part of 
divine worship were to be censured as transgressors, for con- 
temning one principal part of the religious observation of the 
Lord’s-day. I cannot write this without lamenting the hard 
fate of many pious persons in the present age, whose dis- 
position would incline them to be constant communicants every 
Lord’s-day, but they want opportunity in the present posture 


neglecting 
the rest. 


of affairs to execute their good designs. 


44 C. 10. [Labb.9.] (Cotel. [e. 7.] 
v. 1. p. 438.) Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας 
πιστοὺς εἰς “τὴν ἁγίαν. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ- 
κλησίαν, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν Τραφῶν ἀ- 
κούοντας, μὴ παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ 
προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς 
ἂν ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
ape τ στ ας χρή. 

© Ὁ, 2. See before, b. 15. ch. 4. 
8.1. Ve. Ps 222. 0.34, 

46 Ὁ, 28. (t. 1. p. 973 e.) Episco- 

pos placuit ab eo, qui non commu- 


Such must content 


nicat, munera accipere non debere. 

47 C. 13. (t. 2. p. 1225 d.) De his, 
qui intrant in ecclesiam, et depre- 
henduntur nunquam communicare, 
admoneantur. Quod si non com- 
municant, ad peenitentiam accedant. 

48 C. 14. (ibid. d.) Si quis autem 
acceptam a sacerdote eucharistiam 
non sumpserit, velut sacrilegus pro- 
pellatur. 

49 B. 15. ch. 9. 8. I. νὸν 5. p. 530. 


§ 2, 3. violation of the Lord’s-day. 371 


themselves with that of the Apostle, [2 Cor. 8, 12.] “ If there 
be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man 
hath, and not according to that he hath not ;” and in the mean 
time pray to God to find out a method in his good providence 
to restore the ancient discipline and primitive fervour. But 1 
proceed. 

8. It was an ancient and general custom in the primitive wears ae 
Church to keep the Lord’s-day as a festival and day of re- gay prohic. 
joicing, in memory of our Saviour’s resurrection ; and never to Se a 
fast on that day, no not even in the time of Lent. And there- ae 
fore to fast perversely on this day was always reputed a saeph 
erime deserving ecclesiastical censure. Tertullian°° says, ‘ they 
counted it a crime to fast on the Lord’s-day.’ And he re- 
marks 51, ‘that even the Montanists, who were the most rigid 
in observing their times of fasting, omitted both Saturday and 
Sunday throughout the year. For though they observed three 
Lents, and two weeks of werophagia or dry meats besides, 
yet they excepted the Sabbath or Saturday and the Lord’s- 
day from these laws of fasting.’ St. Ambrose 52 likewise tells 
us, ‘ that the Catholics were used to except these two days in 
their Lent fasts. They never fasted on the Lord’s-day, but 
thought they had reason to condemn the Manichees for so 
doing **: for to appoint that day to be a fast-day, was in effect 
to disbelieve the resurrection of Christ.’ Several other here- 
tics besides the Manichees were condemned for this practice 
by the first Council of Braga δ᾽: they particularly name the 
Cerdonians, Marcionites, and Priscillianists, whom they ana- 
thematize upon this account, as fasting on the day of Christ’s 


50 De Cor. Mil. c. 3. (p. 102 a.) 
Die Dominico jejunium nefas duci- 
mus. 

*l De Jejun. advers. Psychicos, 
c. 15. (p. 552 ¢.).... Duas in anno 
hebdomadas xerophagiarum, nec to- 
tas, exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Do- 
minicis, offerimus Deo. 

52 De Elia et Jejunio, c. το. (t. 1. 
Ρ- 543 Ὁ. n. 34.) Quadragesime to- 
tis, preter Sabbatum et Dominicam, 
jejunatur diebus. 

53 Ep. 83. [al. 2.] de Pasch. Ce- 
lebrand. Ration. (t. 2. p. 883 c. ἢ. 
11.) Dominica autem jejunare non 


possumus, quia Manichzos etiam ob 
istius diei jejunia jure damnamus. 
Hoc enim est in resurrectionem 
Christi non credere, si quis legem 
jejunii die resurrectionis indicat. 

54 C.1. [al. Bracar. 2.7 c. 4. (t. 5. 
p. 837 e.) Si quis natale Christi 
secundum carnem non vere hono- 
ret, sed honorare se simulat, jeju- 
nans in eodem die et in Dominico; 
quia Christum in vera hominis na- 
tura esse [al. natum esse} non cre- 
dit, sicut Cerdon, Marcion, Mani- 
cheus, et Priscillianus, anathema 
sit. 


Bb 2 


372 The great crimes, XVI. vii. 


nativity, and the Lord’s-day, because they did this in deroga- 
tion to the truth of Christ’s human nature. Pope Leo 55 notes 
the Priscillianists upon the same account; and the fourth 
Council of Carthage °€ censures them as no Catholics, who 
choose to fast upon this day. St. Austin 57 not only says, 
that it was the custom of the whole Catholic Church to abstain 
from fasting on this day, but 55 that no one could do otherwise 
without giving great scandal to the Church, because the im- 
pious Manichees had chosen this day particularly to fast upon 
in opposition to the Church. Upon these grounds and reasons 
the canons are very severe in their censures of such trans- 
gressors. ‘If any one fast on the Lord’s-day,’ says the Coun- 
cil of Gangra 59, ‘ though it be under pretence of leading an 


ascetic life, let him be anathema.’ 


stolical Canons ©° : 


In like manner the Apo- 


‘If any clergyman fast on the Lord’s-day 


or on the Sabbath, one only excepted, viz. the Sabbath before 


Easter, let him be deposed. 


55 Ep. 93. ad Turibium, c. 4. (CC. 
t. 3. p. 1412 b.) Quarto capitulo 
continetur, quod natalem Christi, 
quem secundum susceptionem veri 
hominis Catholica ecclesia veneratur, 
quia Verbum caro factum est et ha- 
bitavit in nobis, non vere isti hono- 
rent, sed honorare se simulent, je- 
junantes eodem die, sicut et die 
Dominico, qui est dies resurrectionis 
Christi. Quod utique ideo faciunt, 
quia Christum Dominum in vera 
hominis natura natum esse non 
credunt, sed per quandam illusio- 
nem ostenta videri volunt, que vera 
non fuerint; sequentes dogmata Cer- 
donis atque Marcionis, et cognatis 
suis Manichezis per omnia concor- 
dantes [al. consonantes]. Qui, sicut 
in nostro examine detecti atque con- 
victi sunt, Dominicum diem, quem 
nobis Salvatoris nostri resurrectio 
consecravit, exigunt in meerore je- 
junii ; Solis, ut proditum est, re- 
verentiz hance continentiam devo- 
ventes; ut per omnia sint a nostra 
fidei unitate discordes; et dies, qui 
a nobis in letitia habetur, ab illis in 
afflictione ducatur. Unde dignum 
est, ut inimici crucis et resurrectio- 
nis Christi talem excipiant senten- 
tiam, qualem elegerunt doctrinam. 


If he be a layman, let him be 


56 C. 64. (t. 2. p. 1205 b.) Qui 
Dominico die studiose jejunat, non 
credatur Catholicus. 

57 Ep. 11g. [al. 55.] ad Januar. 
c. 15. (Ὁ. 2. p. 139 6.) Propter hoc 
et jejunia relaxantur, et stantes ora- 
mus, quod est signum resurrectio- 
nis, unde etiam omnibus diebus 
Dominicis id ad altare observatur, 
et halleluia canitur, etc. 

58 pal 86. [al. 36.] ad Casulan. 
ὍΣ (t. 2. p. 78 f.) Die autem 
Dominies jejunare scandalum est 
magnum, maxime posteaquam in- 
notuit detestabilis multumque fidei 
Catholicz Scripturisque divinis aper- 
tissime contraria heresis Maniche- 
orum, qui suis auditoribus ad je- 
junandum istum tanquam consti- 
tuerunt legitimum diem, per quod 
factum est, ut jejunium diei Domi- 
nici horribilius haberetur. 

99.0, 18s) (t. 2a. Di 424 Ὁ.) Ei τις 
διὰ νομιζομένην ἄ ἄσκησιν ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ 
νηστεύοι, ἀναθεμα & εστω. 

Ὁ Ὁ. 64. [al. 65.] (Cotel. [ς. 56. ] 
Va ΤΡ. 440.) Εἴ τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθῇ 
τὴν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν ἢ τὸ Σάββατον, 
πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς μόνου, νηστεύων, κα- 
θαιρείσθω: ἐὰν δὲ λαϊκὸς ἢ, ἀφορι- 
ζέσθω. 


§ 3,4. 


east out of the communion of the Church.’ And this is re- 
peated in the Council of Trullo®, and other rules © of the 
ancient Church. 

4. There were many other rules made by the Ancients for Frequent- 
the decent observation of the Lord’s-day : as, that men should Ae 
abstain from all unnecessary bodily labour; that all law-suits ieee aa 
and pleadings and prosecutions should cease upon this day ; times on 
that divine service should be performed standing, in memory ipa 
of our Saviour’s resurrection: but as the transgressions of these ished. 
rules are not usually mentioned with the same commination of 
ecclesiastical punishments, the consideration of them belongs 
not to this head, but shall be reserved for its proper place, 
under the title of Festivals, [in sections 2—6 of the second 
chapter of the twentieth Book,] where the observation of the 
Lord’s-day will come again more particularly to be considered. 

But there is one thing more that must not here be omitted: 
which is, that when men neglected the public service of God, 
to follow vain sports and pastimes on this day, this was thought 
a crime worthy to be corrected by the severest censures of the 
Church. The imperial laws forbad all public games and shows 
on this day. Theodosius the Great speaks of two laws® made 
by himself to this purpose. And Theodosius Junior made an- 


other®, wherein he not only forbids the exhibiting of the 


violation of the Lord’s-day. 373 


61 C. 55. ((. 6. p. 1167 c.) "Exedy 
μεμαθήκαμεν ἐν τῇ Ρωμαίων πόλει ἐν 
ταῖς Τεσσαρακοστῆς νηστείαις τοῖς 
ταύτης Σάββασι νηστεύειν παρὰ τὴν 
παραδοθεῖσαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἀκολου- 
θίαν, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ, ὥστε 
κρατεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ 
ἀπαρασαλεύτως τὸν κανόνα τὸν λέ- 
γοντα, Et τις κληρικὸς, κι τ.λ. 

62 C. Cesar-August. c. 2. (t. 2. 
p- 1009 e.) Ne quis jejunet die Do- 
minica, causa temporis [al. timoris ] 
aut persuasionis, aut superstitionis, 


etc. 

63 Cod. Theod. 1. 15. tit. 5. de 
Spectaculis, leg. 2. (t. 5. p. 350.) 
Illud etiam premonemus, ne quis 
in legem nostram, quam dudum 
tulimus, committat: nullus Solis die 
populo spectaculum prebeat, nec 
divinam venerationem confecta so- 
lemnitate confundat. 

64 Thid. leg. 5. (p. 353-) Domi- 


nico, (qui septimane totius primus 
est dies,) et Natale, atque Epipha- 
niorum Christi, Paschz etiam et 
Quinquagesime diebus, ..... omni 
theatrorum atque circensium volup- 
tate populis denegata, tote Christi- 
anorum ac fidelium mentes cultibus 
Dei occupantur, &c.— Vid. Cod. 
Justin. lib. 3. tit. 12. de Feriis, leg. 
II. (t. 4. p. 609.) Dies festos Ma- 
jestati altissimee dedicatos nullis 
volumus voluptatibus occupari, nec 
ullis exactionum vexationibus pro- 
fanari. Dominicum itaque diem ita 
semper honorabilem decernimus, et 
venerandum, ut a cunctis exsecu- 
tionibus excusetur: nulla quen- 
quam urgeat admonitio: nulla fide- 
jussionis flagitetur exactio: taceat 
apparitio: advocatio delitescat: sit 
ille dies a cognitionibus alienus : 
preconis horrida vox silescat: re- 
spirent a controversiis litigantes, et 


374 The great crimes, XVI. viii. 
shows on the Lord’s-day, but on the other great festivals, the 
Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost. But no penalties 
being annexed to these laws, there was still occasion for the 
laws of the Church to restrain men by ecclesiastical censures. 
And therefore the canons made this crime to be noted as an 
heinous offence, and punished the transgressors with excommu- 
nication. ‘If any one on a solemn day,’ says the fourth Council 
of Carthage®, ‘leave the solemn assembly of the church to 
go to the shows, let him be excommunicated.’ And another 
canon®5 excommunicates those who leave the church whilst 
the bishop is preaching. The fifth Council of Carthage 7, as 
it is related in the African Code, petitioned the emperor Hono- 
rius to forbid all theatrical shows on the Lord’s-day and all 
the great festivals. St. Chrysostom® calls them Σατανικὰ συν- 
edpia, the conventions of Satan, and tells his auditory, ‘he 
would no longer use gentle remedies, but styptics and caustics, 
to put a stop to the raging distemper. They that continued in 
this crime after this formal admonition, should be no longer 
endured, but feel the weight of the ecclesiastical laws, and 


learn thereby not to contemn the divine oracles.’ 


habeant foederis intervallum: ad 
sese simul veniant adversarii non 
timentes, subeat animos vicaria pe- 
nitudo, pacta conferant, transac- 
tiones loquantur. Nec hujus tamen 
religiosi diei otia relaxantes obsce- 
nis quenquam patimur voluptatibus 
detineri. Nihil eodem die sibi vin- 
dicet scena theatralis, aut circense 
certamen, aut ferarum lacrymosa 
spectacula: et si in nostrum ortum, 
aut natalem celebranda solemnitas 
inciderit, differatur. Amissionem 
militiz, proscriptionemque patrimo- 
nii sustinebit, si quis unquam hoc 
die festo spectaculis interesse, vel 
cujuscunque judicis apparitor pre- 
textu negotii publici, seu privati, 
hee, que hac lege statuta sunt, 
crediderit temeranda. 

65 C. 88. (t. 2. p. 1206 6.) Qui 
die solemni, praetermisso solemni ec- 
clesiz conventu, ad spectacula vadit, 
excommunicetur. 

66 Ὁ, 24. (ibid. p. 1202 a.) Sacer- 
dote verbum faciente in ecclesia, qui 
de auditorio egressus fuerit, excom- 


municetur. 

67 Cod. Afric. c. 61. (ibid. p. 
1086 6.) Kakeivo ἔτι μὴν δεῖ αἰτῆσαι, 
ἵνα τὰ θεώρια τῶν θεατρικῶν παιγνίων 
ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ καὶ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς 
φαιδραῖς τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως 
κωλύωνται. 

68 Hom. 6. in Gen. Δ: 8). pope 
(t. 4. Pp. 42 Cc.) "ANN ὅπως μὴ πάλιν 
τοῖς αὐτοῖς περιπέσητε, μηδὲ μετὰ 
τὴν τοσαύτην ἡμῶν παραίνεσιν πάλιν 
ἐπὶ τὰ “Σατανικὰ συνέδρια ἐκεῖνα δρά- 
μητε, ἀναγκαῖον διαμαρτύρασθαι" οὐδὲ 
γὰρ πάντοτε καλὸν προσηνῆ φάρμακα 
ἐπιτιθέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἢ τὸ ἕλκος δυσ- 
ένδοτον, δεῖ καὶ τὰ στύφοντα καὶ τὰ 
δάκνειν δυνάμενα προσάγειν, ἵνα τα- 
χεῖα γένηται ἡ διόρθωσις. Μαθέτωσαν 
τοίνυν ἅπαντες, οἱ τοῖς ἐγκλήμασιν 
ὑπεύθυνοι, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μετὰ ταύτην 

ἡμῶν [τὴν] i παραίνεσιν πάλιν τῇ αὐτῇ 
ῥᾳθυμίᾳ ᾿ἐπιμένωσιν, οὐκ ἀνεξόμεθα, 
ἀλλὰ τοῖς νόμοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας χρη- 
σάμενοι μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτοὺς τῆς σφο- 
δρότητος διδάξομεν μὴ τοιαῦτα πλημ- 
μελεῖν, μηδὲ μετὰ τοσαύτης καταφρο- 
νήσεως τῶν θείων ἀκούειν λογίων. 


disobedience to parents, &c. 375 


4. fix. 1. 


By which it is evident, that though the games and pastimes 
of the circus and the theatre were still allowed under the 
Christian emperors, yet they were precisely forbidden on the 
Lord’s-day : and to frequent them at that time was one of 
those great transgressions for which men felt the heaviest 
censures of the Church. 


CHAT. tn. 


: Of great transgressions against the Fifth Commandment, 

disobedience to parents and masters; treason and re- 
bellion against princes; and contempt of the laws of the 
Church. 


, 1. Unper the name of parents is commonly understood not Children 
) only the natural parents, but also the political or civil, that is, not te de- 
magistrates and rulers; as also spiritual parents, that is, the parents un- 
governors of the Church; and economical parents, that is, a τὸν 
masters of families: whose authority respectively over their gga 
children, subjects, people, and servants, being very great, it aE eh 
was thought proper to secure it not only by the laws of Se 
the State, but also by the laws and spiritual censures of the ᾿ 
Church. 

Children by the old Roman law were esteemed so much the 
property and possession. of their parents, that they had power 
of life and death over them', and also might sell them to be 


slaves without redemption?, in cases of extreme necessity for 


1 Cod. Justin. 1. 8. tit. 47. De 
patria potestate, leg.1o. (t.4. p. 2242.) 
...+. Patribus, quibus jus vite in li- 
beros necisque potestas olim erat 
permissa, ὅζο. 

2 Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 3. De pa- 
tribus, qui filios distraxerunt, leg. 1. 
(t.1. p. 257.) Omnes, quos paren- 
tum miseranda fortuna in servitium, 
dum victum requirunt, addixit, in- 
genuitati pristine reformentur, &c. 
—L. 5. tit. 8. De his, qui sanguino- 
lentos emptos vel nutriendos acce- 
perunt. (ibid. p. 448.) Secundum 
statuta priorum principum, si quis 
a sanguine quoquo modo legitime 
comparaverit, vel nutriendum puta- 
verit, obtinendi ejus servitii habeat 
potestatem : ita ut si quis post se- 


riem annorum ad libertatem eum 
repetat, vel servum defendat, ejus- 
dem modi alium prestet, aut pre- 
tium, guod potest valere, exsolvat. 
—L. 11. tit. 27. De alimentis, que 
inopes parentes de publico pete- 
re debent, leg. 1. (t. 4. p. 188.) 
Kreis tabulis, vel cerussatis, aut 
lintels mappis, scripta per omnes 
civitates Italie proponatur lex, que 
parentum manus a parricidio arceat, 
votumque vertat in melius; offici- 
umque tuum [vicarium Italiz intel- 
ligit} hae cura perstringat: Ut si 
quis parens afferat sobolem, quam 
pro paupertate educare non possit, 
nec in alimentis, nec in veste imper- 
tienda tardetur, cum educatio nas- 
centis infantiz moras ferre non pos- 


376 The great crimes, XVI. ix. 
their own maintenance: as appears from several laws in both 
the Codes, and the complaints made by the Ancients? of this 
hardship, and the allusion which our Saviour makes in the 
parable to the like custom among the Jews, (Matth. 18, 25.) 
where the lord commands his debtor “ to be sold, and his wife 
and children, and al] that he had, and payment to be made.” 
And though the laws of Christian emperors a little restrained 
this exorbitant power of parents, taking from them the power 
of life and death, and allowing children to be maintained out 
of the public revenue, to prevent being sold*, or to be re- 
deemed again, if sold; yet still they left a considerable power 
in the hands of parents to dispose of their children, whilst they 
were minors or under age. only excepting the cases of slavery 
and death. For, till the time of Justinian, children were not 
allowed to betake themselves to a monastic life without or 
against the consent of their parents. Which is evident from 
the rule of St. Basil®, which forbids children to be received 
into monasteries, unless they were offered by their parents, if 


sit: ad quam rem, et fiscum nos- 
trum et rem privatam indiscreta 
jussimus przbere obsequia.— Leg. 2. 
(ibid. p. 190.) Provinciales, egestate 
victus atque alimoniz inopia labo- 
rantes, liberos suos vendere, vel op- 
pignorare cognovimus. Quisquis 
igitur hujusmodi reperietur, qui 
nulla rei familiaris substantie fultus 
est, quique liberos suos egre ac dif- 
ficile sustentet, per fiscum nostrum, 
antequam fiat calamitati obnoxius, 
adjuvetur: ita ut proconsules, pre- 
sidesque, et rationales per universam 
Africam habeant potestatem, et uni- 
versis, quos adverterint in egestate 
miserabili constitutos, stipem neces- 
sariam largiantur ; atque ex horreis 
substantiam protinus tribuant com- 
petentem: abhorret enim nostris 
moribus, ut quenquam fame confici, 
vel ad indignum facinus prorum- 
pere, concedamus.—Conf. Valentin. 
Novel. 11, ad cale. Cod. Theod. 
(t. 6. append. p. 26.) De parentibus, 
qui filios suos, &c. Item, 1. 5. tit. 8. 
De his, qui sanguinolentos emptos 
acceperint. Item, ]. 11. tit. 27. De 
alimentis, que inopes parentes de 
publico petere debent. legg. 1 et 2. 
3 Basil. Hom. in Ps. 14. t. 1. p. 


141. (t. 1. part. I. p. 159 ¢. n. 4.) 
Εἶδον ἐγὼ ἐλεεινὸν θέαμα, παῖδας 
ἐλευθέρους ὑπὲρ χρεῶν πατρικῶν ἕλ- 
κομένους εἰς τὸ πρατήριον᾽ οὐκ ἔχεις 
καταλιπεῖν χρήματα τοῖς παισί; μὴ 
προσαφέλη καὶ τὴν εὐγένειαν. 

4 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 15. De his, 
qui parentes vel liberos occiderunt, 
lege unica. (t. 3. p. 112.) Si quis in 
parentis, aut filii, aut omnino affec- 
tionis ejus, que nuncupatione par- 
ricidii continetur, fata properaverit, 
sive clam sive palam id fuerit ausus, 
neque gladio, neque ignibus, neque 
ulla alia solemni pcena subjugetur, 
sed insutus culeo, et inter ejus fe- 
rales angustias comprehensus, ser- 
pentum contuberniis misceatur; et, 
ut regionis qualitas tulerit, vel in 
vicinum mare, vel amnem projicia- 
tur: ut omni elementorum usu vi- 
vus carere incipiat, ut ei celum su- 
perstiti, terra mortuo auferatur.— 
Conf. tit. 27. legg. 1 et 2. See ἢ. 2, 
preceding. 

5 Regul. Major. quest. 15. (t. 2. 
part. 1. p. 400 ἃ. n.t.) Ta δὲ ὑπὸ 
γονεῖς ὄντα, παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐκείνων προσ- 
αγόμενα, ἐπὶ πολλῶν μαρτύρων δεχό- 
μενοι, ὥστε μὴ δοῦναι ἀφορμὴν τοῖς 
θέλουσιν ἀφορμήν. 


§ 1, 2. disobedience to parents, §c. 377 


their parents were alive. And the Council of Gangra® lays an 
heavy penalty upon them: ‘If any children, under pretence of 
religion, forsake their parents, and give them not the honour 
due unto them, let them be anathema.’ This doctrine was 
taught and propagated by the Eustathian heretics, who also 
taught that women might leave their husbands, and parents 
desert their children, and take no further care of them, under 
the same pretence of betaking themselves to a monastic life. 
Against whom the same Council made several other canons’, 
imposing the like penalty upon them. 

2. Another branch of paternal power was the right which Children 
parents had to dispose of their children in marriage: which se are 
right was so carefully guarded by the imperial ae that we consent of 
scarce find any crime so severely revenged as the violation of ey a 
it, when children, who were under their parents’ power, mar- 
ried without or against the consent of their parents, or such 
guardians and tutors as were in the room of them. Witness 


that famous law of Constantine in the Theodosian Code 8, which 


6 C. 16. (t. 2. p. 424 a.) Ei τινα 
τέκνα , γονέων, μάλιστα πιστῶν, ἀνα- 
χωροίη προφάσει θεοσεβείας, καὶ μὴ 
τὴν καθήκουσαν τιμὴν τοῖς γονεῦσιν 
ἀπονέμοι, προτιμωμένης δηλονότι παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς τῆς θεοσεβείας, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

7 C. 14. (ibid. p. 419 6.) Et τις 
γυνὴ καταλιμπάνοι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ 
ἀναχωρεῖν ἐθέλοι, βδελυττομένη τὸν 
γάμον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.---(.15. (ibid. 6.) 
Εἴ τις καταλιμπάνῃ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ τέκνα. 
καὶ μὴ τεκνοτροφῇ, καὶ ὅσον ἐν ἑαυτῷ 
πρὸς θεοσέβειαν τὴν προσήκουσαν 
ἀγάγῃ, ἀλλὰ προφάσει τῆς ἀσκήσεως 
ἀμελοίη, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

8 L. g. tit. 24. De raptu virgi- 
num et viduarum, leg. 1. (t. 3. p. 
189.) Si quis nihil cum parentibus 
puellz ante depectus [leg. depactus, ] 
Invitam eam rapuerit, vel volentem 
abduxerit, patrocinium ex ejus re- 
sponsione sperans, . . . nihil ei secun- 
dum jus vetus prosit puellze respon- 
sio; sed ipsa puella potius societate 
criminis obligetur. Et quoniam pa- 
rentum szpe custodie nutricum fa- 
bulis et pravis suasionibus deludun- 
tur, his primum, quarum detestabile 
ministerium fuisse arguetur, redemp- 
tique discursus, poena immineat, ut 
eis meatus oris et faucium, qui ne- 


faria hortamenta protulerit, liquentis 
plumbi ingestione claudatur. Et si 
voluntatis assensio detegitur in vir- 
gine, eadem qua raptor severitate 
plectatur: cum neque his impunitas 
preestanda sit, quee rapiuntur invite ; 
cum et domi se usque ad conjunc- 
tionis diem servare potuerint; et, si 
fores raptoris frangerentur andacia, 
vicinorum opem clamoribus que- 
rere, seque omnibus tueri conatibus. 
Sed his peenam leviorem imponimus, 
solamque eis parentum negari suc- 
cessionem precipimus. Raptor au- 
tem, indubitate convictus, si appel- 
lare voluerit, minime audiatur. Si 
quis vero servus, raptus facinus dis- 
simulatione preteritum, aut pactione 
transmissum, detulerit in publicum, 
Latinitate donetur: aut si Latinus 
sit, civis fiat Romanus: parentibus, 
quorum maxime vindicta intererat, 
si patientiam prebuerint ac dolorem 
compresserint, deportatione plecten- 
dis. Participes etiam et ministros 
raptoris, citra discretionem sexus, 
eadem pcena precipimus subjugari. 
Et si quis inter hac ministeria ser- 
vilis conditionis fuerit deprehensus, 
citra sexus discretionem eum con- 
cremari jubemus. 


378 The great crimes, XVI. ixi 


runs in these terms: ‘If any one, without first obtaining the 
consent of parents, steal a virgin against her will, or carry her 
off by her own consent, hoping that her consent will protect 
him; he shall have no benefit from such consent, as the an- 
cient laws have determined; but the virgin herself shall be 
held guilty, as partaker in the crime. If any nurse be instru- 
mental or accessory to the fact by her persuasions, which often 
defeat the parents’ care, her detestable service shall-be re- 
venged by pouring molten lead into her mouth that ministered 
such wicked counsels. If the virgin be detected to have given 
her consent, she shall be punished with the same severity as 
the raptor himself: seeing she that is stolen away against her 
will is not suffered to go unpunished; because she might have 
kept herself at home; or, if she was taken by violence out of 
her father’s house, she should have cried out for help to the 
neighbourhood, and used all means possible to defend herself. 
But on such we impose only a lighter punishment, denying 
them the right of succeeding to their father’s inheritance. But 
the raptor himself, bemg clearly convicted, shall have no be- ° 
nefit of appeal. If parents, who are chiefly concerned to prose- 
cute this crime, connive at it, they shall be banished. All who 
are partners or assistants to the raptor shall be hable to the 
same punishment, without distinction of sex. And if any such 
be slaves, they shall be burnt alive.’ 

This law of Constantine’s is confirmed by another law of his 
son Constans%, only with this difference, that whereas Con- 
stantine’s law ordered the criminals to be burnt alive, or thrown 
to the wild beasts, as Gothofred interprets it; this of Constans 
so far moderated the punishment, as to let it be only a common 
death, that it might more duly be put in execution. Yet if 
any slaves were concerned in aiding the raptors in such 
attempts, they were still to be burnt alive, according to the 
tenour of the former law. By another law of Valentinian and 
Gratian 1°, widows are not allowed to marry a second time 


9 Cod. Theod. ibid. leg. 2. (p. 
193.) Quamvis legis prioris exstet 
auctoritas, qua inclytus pater noster 
contra raptores atrocissime jusserat 
vindicari, tamen nos tantummodo 
capitalem poenam constituimus ; vi- 
delicet, ne sub specie atrocioris ju- 


dicii aliqua in ulciscendo crimine 
dilatio nasceretur. In audaciam ve- 
ro servilem dispari supplicio men- 
sura legum impendenda est, ut per- 
urendi subjiciantur ignibus, &c. 

10 Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 7. de 
Nuptiis, leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 276.) Vi- 


§ 2. 


disobedience to parents, §c. 


379 


without the consent of their parents, if they were under the 
age of twenty-five years, although they were sud juris, and 


enjoyed the liberty of emancipation. 


And there are many 


other laws in both the Codes !! to the same purpose. 


The ecclesiastical laws in this concur with the civil. 


St.. 


Austin? says expressly, ‘ that mothers as well as fathers have 
this right in their children, to dispose of them in marriage, 
unless they be of that age which gives them liberty to choose 


for themselves.’ 


Tertullian 15. says the same; ‘that children 


cannot lawfully marry without the consent of their earthly 


parents.’ 


St. Basil 15. in one of his canons gives directions ‘ that 


they who stole virgins should be treated as fornicators, that is, 


duz intra 25. annum degentes, e- 
tiamsi emancipationis libertate gau- 
deant, tamen in secundas nuptias 
non sine patris sententia conveni- 
ant. 

11 Cod. Theod. ibid. leg. 3. (p. 279.) 
Si donationum ante nuptias vel dotis 
instrumenta defuerint, pompa etiam 
aliaque nuptiarum celebritas omit- 
tatur, nullus estimet ob id deesse, 
recte alias inito matrimonio, firmita- 
tem, vel ex eo natis liberis jura posse 
legitimorum auferri, si inter pares 
honestate personas, nulla lege im- 
pediente, fiat consortium, quod ip- 
sorum consensu atque amicorum 
fide firmatur.—Cod. Justin. 1. 5. tit. 
4. de Nupt. leg. 1. (t. 4. p. 1129.) 
Cum de nuptiis puelle queritur, 
nec inter tutorem et matrem et pro- 
pinquos de eligendo futuro marito 
convenit ; arbitrium presidis pro- 
vinciz necessarium est.—Leg. 2. (p. 
ead.) Si nuptiis pater tuus consen- 
sit; nihil oberit tibi, quod instru- 
mento ad matrimonium pertinenti 
non subscripsit.—Leg. 7. (p. ead.) Si 
post querelam de marito a filia tua ad 
te delatam, dissolutum est matrimo- 
nium, nec te consentiente ad eun- 
dem regressa est; minus legitima 
conjunctio est, cessante patris vo- 
luntate, in cujus est potestate: at- 
que ideo, non petente filia, petitio- 
nem dotis repetere non prohiberis. 
—Leg. 20. (p. 1136.) In conjunc- 
tione filiarum in sacris positarum, 
patris exspectetur arbitrium. Sed 
si sui juris puella sit, intra quintum 
et vicesimum annum constituta, ip- 


sius quoque assensus exploretur. Si 
patris auxilio destituta, matris, et 
propinquorum, et ipsius quoque re- 
quiratur adultz judicium. Si vero 
utroque orbata parente, sub cu- 
ratoris defensione constituta sit, etc. 
—Justin. Institut. 1. 1. tit. το. de 
Nuptiis, (t. 5. p. 47.) Si 811} fami- 
liarum sint, et consensum habeant 
parentum, quorum sunt in potestate. 
Nam hoc fieri debere, et civilis et 
naturalis ratio suadet: in tantum ut 
jussus parentis preecedere debeat. 

12 Ep. 233. [al. 254.] ad Benenat. 
Cc. 2. Ὁ» δι e.).. -Cujus [scil. matris] 
voluntatem in tradenda filia omni- 
bus, ut arbitror, natura preeponit ; 
nisi eadem puella in ea jam etate 
fuerit, ut jure licentiori sibi ipsi eli- 
gat quid [al. sibi eligat ipsa quod] 
velit. 

13 Ad Uxor. 1. 2. Ὁ! 9. (p. 172 a.) 
Nam nec in terris filii sine consensu 
patrum recte [al. rite] et jure nu- 
bunt [al. nubent. ] 

14 C, 22. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 199. 
Canonic. Secund.] (it. "Se  κρν 
1736 c.) Eide σχολάζουσάν 7 Tis λάβοι, 
ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μὲν δεῖ καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις 
ἀποκαθιστᾷν" ἐπιτρέπειν δὲ τῇ γνώ- 
pn τῶν οἰκείων, εἴτε γονεῖς εἶεν, εἴτε 
ἀδελφοὶ, εἴτε οἱτινεσοῦν προεστῶτες 
τῆς κόρης" κἂν μὲν ἕλωνται αὐτῷ πα- 
ραδοῦναι, ἵστασθαι τὸ συνοικέσιον" 
ἐὰν δὲ a ἀνανεύσωσι, μὴ βιάζεσθαι. Τὸν 
μέν τοι ἐκ διαφθορᾶς, εἴτε λαθραίας 
εἴτε βιαιοτέρας, γυναῖκα ἔχοντα, a ἀνάγ- 
a TO τῆς πορνείας ἐπιγνῶναι ἐπιτίμιον" 
ἔστι δὲ ἐν τέσσαρσιν ἔτεσιν ὡρισμένη 
τοῖς πορνεύουσιν ἐπιτίμησις. 


380 The great crimes, XVi.as 


do four years’ penance ; and when the virgins were restored to 
their guardians, it was at their discretion, whether they would 
give them in marriage to the raptors or not.’ In another 
canon! he says, ‘ If slaves marry without the consent of their 
_masters, or children without the consent of their parents; it is 
not matrimony but fornication, till they ratify it by their 
consent.’ Again!®, ‘If virgins, who are under the power of 
their parents, marry without their consent, they are to be 
treated as harlots. If their parents are afterwards reconciled 
to them, and give their consent, yet they shall do three years’ 
penance for their first transgression.’ And again’, ‘ If a slave 
marry without the consent of her master, she differs nothing 
from an harlot: for contracts made without the consent of 
those under whose power they are, have no validity, but are 
null.’ ‘And therefore, though the master afterward give his 
consent, and make the marriage good, yet the first fault shall 


Nor slaves 


ithout the 
τι slaves were as much under the power of their masters, as 


consent of 
their mas- 
ters. 


be punished as fornication.’ 


3. It appears from two of these last mentioned canons, that 


children were under their parents: and therefore it was equally 
a crime for a slave to marry without tiie consent of the master, 


15 C, 42. (ibid. p-1744 a.) οἱ ἄνευ 
τῶν κρατούντων γάμοι πορνεῖαί εἰσιν" 
οὔτε οὖν πατρὸς ζῶντος οὔτε δεσπότου 
οἱ συνιόντες ἀνεύθυνοί εἶσιν, ὡς ἐὰν 
[4]. ἕως ἀν] ἐπινεύσωσιν οἱ κύριοι τὴν 
συνοίκησιν" τότε [γὰρ] λαμβάνει τὸ 
το τὼ βέβαιον. 

Ο. 38. (ibid. p. 1741 ἃ.) Αἱ 
κόραι, αἱ παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἀκολουθήσασαι, πορνεύουσι" διαλλα- 
γέντων δὲ τῶν γονέων δοκεῖ “θεραπείαν 
λαμβάνειν τὸ γεγονὸς πρᾶγμα" οὐκ 
εὐθὺς δὲ εἰς τὴν κοινωνίαν ἀποκαθί- 
στανται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιτιμηθήσονται τρία 
ἔτη.--- Conf. Matth. Monach. Re- 
spons. Matrim. in Jure Gr.—Rom. 
Leunclavii, pp. 500, 801. 

17 C. 40. (ibid. 6.) “H παρὰ γνώμην 
τοῦ δεσπότου ἀνδρὶ ἑαυτὴν ἐκδοῦσα 
ἐπόρνευσεν" ἡ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα πεπαρ- 
ρησιαμένῳ γάμῳ χρησαμένη, ἐγήμα- 
το. ὥστε ἐκεῖνο μεν πορνεία, τοῦτο δὲ 
γάμος" αἱ γὰρ συνθῆκαι τῶν ὑπεξου- 
σίων οὐδὲν ἔχουσι βέβαιον. [ Conf. 
Balsam. le νι ap. Bevereg. Pan- 
dect. (t. » 98 c.).... Kav pera 


ταῦτα συναίνεσις παρηκολούθησε τοῦ 
δεσπότου, ἢ ἢ αὐτὴ ἡ δούλη. ἐλευθερω- 
θεῖσα τῷ προτέρῳ γάμῳ ἐστοίχησεν, 
οὐ λογίζεται τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς 
αὐτῆς ἔννομον διὰ τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα συν- 
αίνεσιν, κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν λέγοντα, 
Τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀβέβαια ἐκ τῶν μετὰ 
ταῦτα συμβαινόντων οὐ βεβαιοῦνται. 

«Διά τοι τοῦτο, χάριν μὲν τοῦ 
LLY EES MELD κακου, επιτιμία ΒΤ ΣῈ 
τούτοις ἐπιφορτισθήσονται" ἡ δὲ μετὰ 
ταῦτα συμβίωσις ἔ ἔσται ἀνεπιτίμητος. 
—Grischovius and those, who have 
copied the citations as first given in 
extenso by him, complain that they 
cannot find the last part of the Au- 
thor’s citation, —‘ And _ therefore, 
though the master, &c.’—in any 
copy of Basil’s canon! How could 
they? for the words in question are 
indeed no part of the canon itself, 
but are the abstract of Balsamon’s 
comment and reasoning thereon, as is 
plainly shown by the portion I have 
now cited as above. Ep. | 


§ 3,4. 381 


as for a child to do it without consent of parents. And for the 
same reason a slave was not allowed either to enter himself 
into a monastery, or take orders, without the consent of his 
master, as has been shown in other places !8; because this was 
to deprive his master of his legal right of service, which by the 
original state and condition of slaves was his due: and the 
Church would not be accessory to such frauds and injustice, 
but rather discourage them by prohibitions and suitable penal- 
ties laid upon them. 

4. Another sort of parents, whose honour was intended to The pu- 
be secured by this command, were the political parents, patres yaa 
patrie, kings and emperors, whose authority and majesty was and disre- 

spect to 
reputed sacred and supreme next under God. And therefore princes, 
all disloyalty and disrespect showed to them, either in word or 
action, was always severely chastised by the laws of the Church. 
T need not here suggest what civil penalties were inflicted by 
the laws of the State upon transgressors in this kind, because 
the ancient Civil Codes are full of them under several titles, 
which the learned reader may consult at his own leisure, such 
as ‘Speaking evil of dignities 19: ‘ Counterfeiting -their let- 
ters 2°,’ « Corrupting or counterfeiting their coin?!;’ ‘ Consult- 


disobedience to parents, &c. 


i 4. CN. 4. 8. 3. ν 5. Ρ.. 57: 
Bugecu. 5. 8. 2.°v. 2: ἢ. 355: 

19 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 4. Si 
quis Imperatori maledixerit, leg. 1. 
(t. 3. p. 42.) Si quis, modestiz ne- 
scius et pudoris ignarus improbo 
petulantique maledicto nomina nos- 
tra crediderit lacessenda, ac temu- 
lentia turbulentus obtrectator tem- 
porum fuerit, eum peene nolumus 
subjugari, neque durum aliquid nec 
asperum sustinere: quoniam, si id 
ex levitate processerit, contemnen- 
dum est: si ex insania, miseratione 
dignissimum: si ab injuria, remit- 
tendum. Unde integris omnibus ad 
nostram scientiam referatur, ut ex 
personis hominum dicta pensemus, 
et utrum pretermitti an exquiri de- 
beat, censeamus. 

20 Ibid. tit. το. ad Legem Cor- 
neliam de Falso, leg. 3. (ibid. p. 161.) 
Serenitas nostra prospexit, inde cce- 
lestium [i. 6. imperatoriarum ] lite- 
rarum ccepisse imitationem, quod 
his apicibus tuz gravitatis officium 


consultationes, relationesque com- 
plectitur, quibus scrinia nostre per- 
ennitatis utuntur: quamobrem is- 
tius sanctionis auctoritate precipi- 
mus, ut posthac, magistra falsorum, 
consuetudo tollatur, et communibus 
literis universa mandentur, que vel 
de provincia fuerint scribenda, vel a 
judice; ut nemo stili hujus exem- 
plum aut privatim sumat, aut pub- 
lice. 

21 [bid. tit. 21. de Falsa Mone- 
ta, leg. 1. (p. 169.) Quicunque adul- 
terina fecerit nomismata, poenam 
pro discretione sexus et conditionis 
sue diversitate sustineat: hoc est, 
ut, si decurio vel decurionis sit filius, 
exterminatus genitali solo ad quam- 
cunque in longinquo positam civi- 
tatem sub perpetui exilii conditione 
mittatur, ac super facultatibus ejus 
ad nostram scientiam referatur: si 
plebeius, ut rebus amissis perpetuce 
damnationi dedatur: 581] servilis 
conditionis, ultimo supplicio subju- 
getur.—Conf. leg. seqq. It. tit. 22. 


382 The great crimes, XVI. ix. 


ing augurs or astrologers about the term of their life??;’ or 
‘Using any curious arts to know who should be their succes- 
sor ;’ ‘ Raising of tumults2? to the disturbance of the public 
discipline ;' ‘ Conspiring against their lives, or government ;’ 
‘ Bearing arms without their authority 35: and the like crimes, 
which come under the general names of sedition, treason, con- 
spiracy, and rebellion, which were always excepted in those 
general indulgences 36, that the emperors were wont to grant 
at Easter to other criminals. I need not say further, that 
the contempt of the imperial laws was usually reputed a sort 
of sacrilege by the laws themselves 27, and punished under that 


title. 


That which I am chiefly concerned to remark here is, the 


(p. 180.) Si quis solidi circulum 
exteriorem inciderit, vel adulteratum 
in vendendo subjecerit.—It. tit. 23. 
(p. 185.) Si quis pecunias confla- 
verit, etc. 

22 Tbid. tit. 16. de Malefic. et 
Mathemat. leg. 8. (ibid. p. 127.) 
Cesset mathematicorum tractatus : 
nam si quis publice aut privatim, in 
die noctuque, deprehensus fuerit in 
cohibito errore versari, capitali sen- 
tentia feriatur uterque. 

23 Thbid. tit. 33. De his qui plebem 
audent contra publicam colligere 
disciplinam, leg. 1. (ibid. p. 236.) 
Si quis, contra evidentissimam jus- 
sionem, suscipere plebem, et adver- 
sus publicam disciplinam defendere, 
fortasse tentaverit, mulctam gra- 
vissimam sustinebit. 

24 [bid. tit. 5. ad Legem Juliam 
Majestatis, leg. 1. (ibid. p. 49.) Si 
quis alicui majestatis crimen inten- 
derit, cum in hujuscemodi re con- 
victus minime quisquam, privilegio 
dignitatis alicujus, astrictiore in- 
quisitione defendatur; sciat se quo- 
que tormentis esse subdendum, si 
aliis manifestis indiciis accusationem 
suam non potuerit comprobare, cum 
eo, qui hujus esse temeritatis depre- 
henditur. [lum quogue tormentis 
subdi oportet, cujus consilio ac in- 
stinctu ad accusationem accessisse 
videbitur, ut ab omnibus commissi 
consciis statuta vindicta possit re- 
portari, etce.—Tit. 6. Ne preter cri- 
men majestatis servus dominum, vel 
patronum libertus seu familiaris, ac- 


cuset. (ibid. p. 51.) —Tit. 14. ad 
Legem Corneliam de Sicariis. (ibid. 
p- 84.)—Tit. 40. de Peenis, legg. 15, 
τό, 17. (ibid. pp. 308, seqq.)—L. 15. 
tit. 14. De infirmandis his, que sub 
tyrannis gesta sunt (t. 5. p. 403.) 

25 Ibid. 1. 15. tit. 14. leg. 1. Ut 
armorum usus inscio principe inter- 
dictus sit. (juxt. Cod. Justin. 1. τι. 
leg. 46. t. 5. p. 167. Cod. Theod. 
t. 5. Ρ. 419.) Nulli prorsus, nobis 
insciis atque inconsultis, quorumli- 
bet armorum movendorum copia 
tribuatur. 

26 Ibid. 1. 9. tit. 38. de Indul- 
gentiis Criminum. (t. 3. pp. 266, 


a) é ; 

27 Ibid. 1.6. tit. 5. leg. 2. (t. 2. p. 
70.)...Sitque plane sacrilegii reus, 
qui divina precepta neglexerit.—It 
tit. 24. de Domesticis, leg. 4. (ibid. p. 
135.) Pcena sacrilegii similis erit, si 
his honorificentia non deferatur, gui 
contingere nostram purpuram digni 
sunt estimati—tTit. 35. De privile- 
giis militum palatinorum, leg. 13. 
(p. 244.) Omnes, qui in palatio mih- 
tando diversis actibus paruerunt, se- 
cundum legem domini Germani nos- 
tri, in tantum ejus dignitatis, cujus 
meruerint missionem, obtinere 10- 
rint insignia, ut his omnibus pre- 
ferantur in ordine atque consessu, 
qui posteriore tempore regendas 
provincias dignitatesque susceperint 
palatinas. Hoc autem generale de- 
cretum si quisquam temeraria usur- 
patione violare tentaverit, sacrilegii 
reus legibus censeatur.—It. tit. 35. 


.. 


disobedience to parents, &c. 383 


ecclesiastical punishment of disloyalty and treason, and all 
scandalous contempt of civil government; against which sort 
of crimes, whether in word or deed, the Ancients showed great 
resentment. For the first three hundred years they gloried 
greatly over the Heathens in this, that though the emperors 
were Heathens, and some of them furious persecutors of the 
Christians, yet there were never any seditious or disloyal 
persons to be found among the persecuted Christians. ‘ You 
defame us,’ says Tertullian?’, ‘ with treason against the em- 
peror,and yet never’could any Albinians, Nigrians, or Cas- 
sians, (persons that had taken arms against the emperors,) be 
found among the Christians. Such as those are they, that 
swear by the emperors’ genii, that have offered sacrifice for 
their safety, that have often condemned Christians; these are 
the men that are found enemies to the emperors. A Christian 
is no man’s enemy, much less the emperor’s: knowing him to 
be the ordinance of God, he cannot but love, revere, and 
honour him, and desire that he and the whole Roman empire 
may be in safety to the end of the world. We worship the 
emperor, as much as is either lawful or expedient, as one that 
is next to God;...we sacrifice for his safety, but it is only to his 
and our God ; and in such manner as he has commanded, only 
by holy prayer. For the great God needs no blood or sweet 
perfumes : these are the banquets and repast of devils, whom 
we not only reject, but expel at every turn.’ For this reason, 
during this interval, there was no need of ecclesiastical punish- 
ments to correct traitors against the civil government, because 
there were no such among Christians. But when the whole 


De privilegiis militum palatinor. leg. 


perio, quousque seculum stabit: 
13. (ibid. p. 244.) et passim alibi. 


tam diu enim stabit. Colimus ergo 


28 Ad Scapulam, c. 2. (p. 69 b.) 
Circa majestatem imperatoris infa- 
marmur, tamen nunquam Albiniani, 
nec Nigriani, vel Cassiani inveniri 
potuerunt Christiani: sed iidem ip- 
si, qui per genios eorum in pridie 
usque juraverant, qui pro salute eo- 
rum hostias et fecerant et voverant, 
qui Christianos seepe damnaverant, 
hostes eorum sunt reperti. Chris- 
tianus nullius est hostis, nedum im- 
peratoris ; quem sciens a Deo suo 
constitui, necesse est ut et ipsum 
diligat, et revereatur, et honoret, et 
salyum velit, cum toto Romano im- 


et imperatorem sic, quomodo et no- 
bis licet, et ipsi expedit, ut hominem 
a Deo secundum: et quicquid est, 
a Deo consecutum [est], et solo Deo 
minorem. .. Sacrificamus pro salute 
imperatoris, sed Deo nostro et ip- 
sius; sed, quomodo precepit Deus, 
pura prece. Non enim eget Deus, 
conditor universitatis, odoris aut 
sanguinis alicujus. Hee enim de- 
moniorum pabula sunt. Dzmones 
autem non tantum respuimus, ve- 
rum et revincimus, et quotidie tra- 
ducimus, et de hominibus expelli- 
mus. 


384 The great crimes, XVI. ix. 


world was become Christian, there was occasion for such laws 
to be made against sedition and treason, and then we find 
several canons to prevent or correct it. The fourth Council of 
Carthage 29 forbids the ordination of any seditious persons, as 
those that would be a scandal to the profession: and this is 
repeated in the same words by the Council of Agde®°. The 
fourth Council of Toledo?! orders all clergymen that took arms 
in any sedition, to be degraded from their order, and to be con- 
fined to a monastery, to do penance there all their lives. The 
fifth Council of Toledo®? mentions an oath of allegiance, which 
in a former general Council of all Spain, was appointed to be 
taken by all the subjects to the king and his heirs: and a most 
severe anathema is pronounced against all that should violate 
any part of it. Particularly they excommunicate and ana- 
thematize all that should pretend to usurp the throne 3, without 
the consent of the nobility and the whole Gothic nation; all 
that should make any curious and unlawful inquiries about the 
fatal period of the life of the prince *+; all that should speak 


29 Ὁ. 67. ((. 2. p. 1205 6.) (Sedi- 
tionarios nunqnam ordinandos cle- 
ricos, sicut nec usurarios nec inju- 
riarum suarum ultores. 

30 Ὁ, 69. (t. 4. p. 1394 Cc.) 

31 C. 44. [al. 45.] (t. 5. p. 1717 
b.) Clerici, qui in quacunque sedi- 
tione arma volentes sumpserint, aut 
[8]. vel] sumpserunt, reperti, amis- 
so ordinis sui gradu, in monaste- 
rium contradantur peenitentie. 

32 C. 2. (ibid. p. 1736 b.) Sed ne 
succedentes przcedentibus, ac de- 
inde sequentes invideant anteriori- 
bus, et ut cuncta quiete et pacate 
permaneant, hec nostri concilil com- 
muniter considerata defertur sen- 
tentia, ut servetis quecunque in 
universali et magna synodo provisa 
conscriptaque circa principum salu- 
tem et utilitatem sunt.... Quocirca 
ne hec promissa timerentur, et, ut 
cupiditas radix omnium malorum 
auferatur, contestamur omnes, pre- 
sentes et absentes, vel etiam futuris 
temporibus subsequentes, coram 
Deo et angelis ejus. Quod si quis- 
quam nostre contestationi temera- 
tor exstiterit, et quacunque argu- 
mentatione odiose eos molestare, aut 
in aliquot fuerit conatus ledere, sit 
anathema in Christianorum omnium 


coetu, atque superno condemnetur 
judicio: sit exprobrabilis omnibus 
Catholicis, et abominabilis sanctis 
angelis in ministerio Dei constitutis : 
sit in hoc seculo perditus, et in fu- 
turo condemnatus, qui tam recte 
provisioni noluit prebere consen- 
sum. 

33 C. 3. (ibid. e.) Quoniam in- 
consideratze quorundam mentes, et 
se minime capientes, quos nec origo 
ornat, nec virtus decorat, passim 
putant licenterque ad regi majes- 
tatis pervenire fastigia; hujus rei 
causa nostra omnium, cum invoca- 
tione divina, profertur sententia, ut 
qui talia meditatus fuerit, quem nec 
electio omnium probat, nec Gothicz 
gentis nobilitas ad hunc honoris 
apicem trahit, sit a consortio Catho- 
licorum privatus, et divino anathe- 
mate condemnatus. 

34 C. 4. (ibid. p. 1737 a.) Ergo, 
quia et religioni inimicum, et ho- 
minibus constat esse superstitiosum 
[al. perniciosum], futura illicite co- 
gitare, et casus principum exquirere, 
ac sibi in posterum providere; cum 
scriptum sit, Non est vestrum nosse 
tempora, vel momenta, que Pater 
posuit in sua potestate ; hoc decreto 
censemus, ut quisquis inventus fu- 


disobedience to parents. Sc. 385 


§ 4, 5: 


evil of him : for it is written, “ Thou shalt not speak evil of the 
ruler of thy people.” ‘If railers shall not inherit the kingdom 
of God 35, how much rather ought such contemners of the 
divine law to be cast out of the Church?’ Finally, they made 
an order 86, ‘that in every Council held in Spain, this decree 
concerning allegiance due to princes should be read, when all 

other things were done, to the end that no one might be un- 

mindful of his duty and obligations to the sovereign power.’ 

And accordingly we find the same decree repeated and con- 

firmed in several other Councils 37 of that nation. 

5. The last sort of parents, to whom honour and obedience Of con- 

is due, are the spiritual parents, or governors of the Church; Ponca = 
the contempt of whose laws and rules, made for the good go- theChurch. 
vernment, order, and edification of the Church, was always 
thought a matter worthy of ecclesiastical censure. There are 
innumerable instances of this in the acts and canons of the 
ancient Councils: I shall content myself with relating two 
or three, which concern matters purely of ecclesiastical ob- 


servation. 


The Council of Antioch®S excommunicates all those who per- 


erit talia perquisisse, et, vivente 
principe, in alium attendisse pro fu- 
tura regni spe, aut alios in se prop- 
ter id attraxisse, a conventu Catho- 
licorum excommunicationis senten- 
tia repellatur. 

89 C. 5. (ibid. c.) Sed et hoc pro 
pestilentiosis hominum moribus sa- 
lubri ordinatione censemus, ne quis 
in principem maledicta congerat. 
Scriptum est enim a Legislatore, 
Principem populi tui non maledices. 
Quod si quis fecerit, excommunica- 
tione ecclesiastica plectatur. Nam 
si maledici regnum Dei non posside- 
bunt, quanto magis talis ab ecclesia 
necessario pellitur, qui divine vio- 
lator sententiz invenitur. 

36 C. 7. (ibid. e.) Propter mala- 
rum mentium facilitatem et memorize 
oblivionem hoc sacratissima statuit 
synodus, ut in omni concilio episco- 
porum Hispaniz, universalis con- 
cilii decretum, quod propter princi- 
pum nostrorum est salutem con- 
stitutum, peractis omnibus in syno- 
do, publica voce debeat pronuntiari; 
quatenus szepe supplicatum auribus, 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


vel assiduitate iniquorum mens ter- 
rita corrigatur, quee ad prevarican- 
dum et oblivione et facilitate, pro- 
ducitur [4]. perducitur]. 

37 C. Tolet. 6. cc. 17 et 18 tot. 
(ibid. p. 1748 d.e.)... Rege de- 
functo, &c.—C. Tolet. το. c. 2. (t. 
6. p. 461 b.) Si quis religiosorum, 
&c.—C. Tolet. 12. 6. 1. (ibid. p. 
1224 a.) In nomine, &c. 

38 C. 1. (t. 2. p. 561 a.) Πάντας 
τοὺς τολμῶντας παραλύειν τὸν ὅρον 
τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης συνόδου, τῆς ἐν 
Νικαίᾳ συγκροτηθείσης ἐπὶ παρουσίᾳ 
τῆς εὐσεβείας τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου βα- 
σιλέως Κωνσταντίνου, περὶ τῆς ἁγίας 
ἑορτῆς τοῦ σωτηριώδους Πάσχα, ἀκοι- 
νωνήτους καὶ ἀποβλήτους εἶναι τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας, εἰ ἐπιμένοιεν φιλονεικότερον 
ἐνιστάμενοι πρὸς τὰ καλῶς δεδογμένα" 
καὶ ταῦτα εἰρήσθω περὶ τῶν λαϊκῶν. 
Εἰ δέ τις τῶν προεστώτων τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας, ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ δι- 
dxovos, μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦτον τολμή- 
σειεν ἐπὶ διαστροφῇ τῶν λαῶν, καὶ 
ταραχῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἰδιάζειν καὶ 
μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐπιτελεῖν τὸ Πά- 
axa’ τοῦτον ἢ ἁγία σύνοδος ἐντεῦθεν 

σο 


XVI. x. 


386 The great crimes, 


tinaciously oppose the rule made about Easter in the Council 
ot Nice. The first Council of Carthage®? more generally cen- 
sures all opposers of ecclesiastical orders : ‘ If any one viciously 
transgress or contemn the decrees of the Church; if he bea 
layman, let him be excommunicated; if a clergyman, let him 
be deprived of the honour of his order.’ The Council of 
Epone*° in like manner concludes her decrees with this sanc- 
tion: ‘If any one disorderly transgress the rules and obserya- 
tions which the holy bishops have made in this present Coun- 
cil, and confirmed with their subscriptions, let him know that 
he shall be liable to the judgment both of God and the Church.’ 
The fourth Council of Toledo*! orders ‘such as reject the use 
of the hymns and prayers appointed by the Church, to be 
punished with excommunication.’ And King Reccaredus, in the 
third Council of Toledo42, besides excommunication, orders a 
civil penalty of confiscation and banishment to be inflicted on 
such as proudly contemned the rules then made in Council, and 
refused to yield obedience to them. And laws of the same im- 
port occur everywhere both in the civil and ecclesiastical Codes, 
so that I need not trouble the learned reader with any more of 
them, having suggested these few as a specimen of that obedi- 
ence which was required to be paid to the laws and authority 
of the Church under the penalty of excommunication. 


ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινεν τῆς ἐκκλησίας" 
ὡς οὐ μόνον ἑαυτῷ ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ 
πολλοῖς διαφθορᾶς καὶ διαστροφῆς, 
γινόμενον αἴτιον" καὶ οὐ μόνον τοὺς 
τοιούτους καθαιρεῖ τῆς λειτουργίας, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τολμῶντας τούτοις κοι- 
νωνεῖν μετὰ τὴν καθαίρεσιν" τοὺς δὲ 
καθαιρεθέντας ἀποστερεῖσθαι καὶ τῆς 
ἔξωθεν τιμῆς, ἧς ὁ ἅγιος κανὼν καὶ τὸ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερατεῖον μετείληφεν. 

39 C. 14. (ibid. p. 718 b.) Si quis 
statuta supergressus corruperit, vel 
pro nihilo habenda putaverit; si lai- 
cus est, communione, si clericus est, 
honore privetur. 

40 Ὁ. 4o. (t. 4. p. 1581 Ὁ.) Si quis 
sanctorum antistitum, qui statuta 
presentia subscriptionis propriis fir- 
maverunt, relicta integritate, obser- 
vationes excesserit, reum se divini- 
tatis pariter et fraternitatis judicio 
futurum esse cognoscat. 


41 (Ὁ. 12. [al. 13.] (t. 5. p.1710¢.) 
Bete Sicut orationes, ita et hymnos 
in laudem Dei compositos, nullus 
nostrum ulterius improbet, sed i 
modo in Gallicia [al. Gallia] Hispa- 
niaque celebrent: excommunicatione 
plectendi, qui hymnos rejicere fu- 
erint ausi. 

42 Kdict. ad calc. C. Tolet. 3. (ibid. 
p- 1015 c.) Si quis vero clericus aut 
laicus harum sanctionum obediens 
[4]. observator ] esse noluerit, superba 
fronte majorum statutis repugnars : 
si episcopus, presbyter, diaconus, 
aut clericus fuerit, ab omni concilio 
excommunicationi subjaceat: si vero 
laicus fuerit, et honestioris loci per- 
sona est; medietatem facultatum 
suarum amittat, fisci juribus profu- 
turam: si vero inferioris loci per- 
sona est, amissione rerum suarum 
mulctatus in exsilio deputetur. 


murder, &c. 387 


CHAP. X. 


Of great transgressions against the Sixth Commandment, 
murder, manslaughter, parricide, self-murder, dismember- 
ing the body, causing abortion, Se. 


1. Wz are now come to the great sin of murder, which the Murder 
civil laws always reckon among those called atrocia delicta Phin 
and atrocissima crimina, those heinous and capital crimes, pital and 
for which they neither allowed pardon nor appeal after clear “Pardon 
conviction. This crime was always excepted in those indul- by the laws 

: A of the 
gences, or general pardons*?, which the emperors granted to gjate. 
criminals upon the account of thei children’s birthdays, or 
the annual returns of the Easter-festival, or any the like occa- 


sion. And whereas many other criminals were allowed the be- 


nefit of appealing, this was wholly denied to murderers+4; nor 


43 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. g. tit. 38. 
de Indulgentiis Criminum, leg. 1. 
See before, ch. 5. 8.5. p. 251. ἢ. 73. 
—Ibid. leg. 6. (t. 3. p. 275.) Pas- 
chalis letitie dies ne illa quidem 
tenere sinit ingenia, que flagitia fe- 
cerunt: pateat insuetis horridus car- 
cer aliquando luminibus. Alienum 
autem censemus ab indulgentia: 1. 
Qui nefariam [al. nefariorum] crimi- 
num conscientiam in majestatem su- 
perbe animaverit [al. animadvertit] : 
2. Qui parricidali furore raptus san- 
guine proprio manum tinxit: 3. Qui 
cujusque preterea hominis cde 
maculatus est: 4. Qui genialis tori 
ac lectuli fuit invasor alieni: 5. Qui 
verecundie virginalis raptor exsti- 
tit: 6. Qui venerandum cognati 
sanguinis vinculum profano czecus 
violayit incestu: vel 7. Qui, noxiis 
queesita graminibus et diris imrour- 
murata secretis, mentis et corporis 
venena composnit: aut 8. Qui, sacri 
oris imitator, et divinorum vultuum 
appetitor, venerabiles formas sacri- 
legio eruditus impressit, &c.—Leg. 
7. (Ρ. 276.) Religio anniversariz ob- 
secrationis hortatur, ut omnes om- 
nino periculo carceris metuque pe- 
narum eximi juberemus, qui leviore 
crimine rei sunt postulati. Unde 
apparet, 608 excipi quos atrox cupi- 
ditas in scelera compulit szviora: 


in quibus est 1. primum crimen et 
maximum, majestatis, 2. deinde ho- 
micidii, 3. veneficiique, ac 4. malefi- 
ciorum, 5. stupri, atque 6. adulterii, 
parique immanitate sacrilegii, 7. se- 
pulchrique violatio, 8. raptus, 9. mo- 
neteeque adulterata figuratio.—Leg. 
8. (p.277.) Ubi primum dies Pascha- 
lis exstiterit, nullum teneat carcer in- 
clusum, omnium vincla solvantur. 
Sed ab his secernimus eos, quibus 
contaminari potius gaudia letitiam- 
que commmunem, si dimittantur, ad- 
vertimus. Quis enim 1. sacrilego 
diebus sanctis indulgeat? Quis 2. a- 
dultero, vel 3. incesti reo tempore 
castitatis ignoscat? quis non 4. rapto- 
rem in summa quiete et gaudio com- 
muni persequatur instantius? 5. Nul- 
lam accipiat requiem vinculorum, qui 
quiescere sepultos quadam sceleris 
immanitate non sivit: patiatur tor- 
menta 6. veneficus, 7. maleficus, 8. 
adulteratorque monete: g. homi- 
cida, quod fecit semper exspectet : 
10. reus etiam majestatis, de domi- 
no, adversum quem talia molitus 
est, veniam sperare non debet. 

4 bid. 1. τι. tit. 36. Quorum 
appellationes non recipiende, leg. 1. 
(t. 4. p. 292.) Cum homicidam, 
vel maleficum, vel veneficum, que 
atrocissima crimina sunt, confes- 
sio propria..... detexerit, provo- 


cc2Z 


388 XVL x 


The great crimes, 


might any such criminals anciently pretend to shelter them- 
selves by taking sanctuary in the church, which is expressly 
provided by a law of Justinian 45, determining who may or may 
not take refuge in the church; where, among those to whom 
this privilege is denied, murderers, adulterers, and ravishers of 
virgins are particularly recounted. 


How pu- 2. By the most ancient laws of some Churches, murderers 
nished by : E 

the laws of Seem to have been subjected to a perpetual penance all their 
the Church. 


lives, and by some denied communion even at the hour of 
death. Tertullian+® says plainly, that neither idolaters nor 
murderers were admitted to the peace of the Church. And 
that he means not here, by the Church, his own sect of the 
Montanists, but the Catholic Churches, is concluded by learned 
men? from hence, that he is arguing with the Catholics, that 
they ought to deny adulterers the peace of the Church, by the 
same reason and rule that they denied it to idolaters and mur- 
derers. Which implies, at least, that some Catholic Churches 
in Afric refused to admit murderers to communion. Which is 
the more probable from what Cyprian4’ says of some of his 
predecessors, ‘that they were used to deny fornicators and 
adulterers the peace of the Church, though they did not upon 
this break communion with others that admitted them.’ Now 
murder being as great a crime as adultery, it is likely they 
rejected murderers as well as adulterers utterly from their 
communion. In the following ages the term of their penance 


cationes suscipi non oportet.—Conf. 
leg. 7. (ibid. p. 298.) Observare cu- 
rabis, &e. 

45 Novel.17. c.7. See before, b.8. 
c. 11. 8.8. V. 3. p. 213. D. 78: 

46 De Pudicit. c. 12.(p. 564 b.)... 
Neque idololatrie neque sanguini 
pax ab ecclesiis redditur. 

47 Vid. Albaspin. Observat. 1. 2. 
6.15. p. 123. (ad cale. Optat. p. 74 
a.) Verba ista Libri de Pudicitia, ... 
Hine est, quod neque idololatrie, &c., 
liquido demonstrant solitos fulsse 
orthodoxos homicidis non commu- 
nicare absolutionem, sed solam pee- 
nitentiam, eosque eterno quasi ex- 
silio condemnatos ab ecclesia abi- 
gere. Quod enim roboris, virium, 
ac ponderis argumenta, que ab eo 
suggeruntur, in orthodoxos habuis- 


sent, nisi opinionis eorum et disci- 
pline fuisset, homicidas perpetuz 
peenitentiz, interclusa omni spe ma- 
joris gratize, censura inuere? Id veri 
speciem non habet; nec aliter de 
Tertulliano cuiquam sentiendum e- 
rit, qui preesertim ejus viri ingenium 
acre et tetricum cognoverit, qui qui- 
dem crimini non vertisset ortho- 
doxis, quod homicidas perpetuo ab 
ecclesia relegarent, adulteris autem 
ad misericordiam sperandam quasi 
signum preferrent; nisi utrumque 
tum temporis verum et usitatum fu- 
isset. Quare cum ejusmodi argu- 
menta contra orthodoxos excogitet 
et proferat, omni asseveratione con- 
firmare possumus, eorum fuisse hance 
et docendi et vivendi rationem. 

48 Ep. 52. [al. 55.] ad Antonian. p. 


389 


murder, §c. 


was a little moderated. For the Council of Ancyra 19 obliges 
them only to do penance all their lives, and allows them 
to be received at the hour of death. Other canons reduce 
their penance to a certain term of years. St. Basil®° appoints 
the wilful murderer ‘twenty years’ penance: four years as a 
mourner ; five years as an hearer; seven years as a prostrator ; 
four years as a co-stander only, to hear the prayers without 
receiving the communion.’ 

3. Yet in some cases the discipline continued still to be more The hei- 
severe against murder, when it happened to be complicated tf vider, 
with other great crimes, such as idolatry, adultery, and the whenjoined 
practice of magical and diabolical arts against the lives of Grae 
men; because these were great aggravations to inflame thes s idolatry, 
account of murder. Thus in the Gana of Eliberis>!: « If, ne ΕΣ 
any Christian took upon him the office of an Heathen Ne practices. 
and therein sacrificed, and committed adultery and murder;’ 

(which might be done either directly, by a personal commission 
of those crimes ; or indirectly, by exhibiting the games and 
shows wherein adultery and murder were committed by their 
authority and concurrence ;) ‘in such a case he was to be de- 


nied communion even at the hour of death, because he had 


doubled and tripled his crime,’ as the canon words it. 


again®? ; 


110. (p. 247.) ... Apud antecessores 
nostros quidam de episcopis istic in 
provincia nostra dandam pacem 
meechis non putaverunt, et in totum 
peenitentiz locum contra adulteria 
clauserunt, &c. 

49 C. 22. (t. 1. p. 1464 c.) Περὶ 
ἑκουσίων φόνων, ὑ ὑποπιπτέτωσαν μὲν, 
τοῦ δὲ τελείου ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ βίου 
καταξιούσθωσαν.---(οπΐ. Ο. Epaun. 
6. 31. (t. 4. p. 1580 b.) De peeniten- 
tia homicidarum, qui seculi leges 
evaserint, hoc summa reverentia de 
eis inter nos placuit observari, quod 
Ancyritani canones decreverunt. 

50 C. 56. (Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert. | (CC, t. 2. p. 1748 
d.) Ὃ ἑκουσίως φονεύσας “μετὰ δὲ 
τοῦτο μεταμεληθεὶς, εἴκοσιν ἔτη ἀκοι- 
νώνητος ἔσται τοῖς ἁγιάσμασι (al. TOU 
ἁγιάσματος). Ta δὲ εἴκοσιν ἔτη οὕτως 
οἰκονομηθήσεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ" ἐν τέσσαρ- 
σιν ἔτεσι προσκλαίειν ὀφείλει, ἔξω 
τῆς θύρας ἑστὼς τοῦ εὐκτηρίου οἴκου, 


So 


‘If any one used pharmacy or magical art to kill an- 


kal τῶν εἰσιόντων πιστῶν δεόμενος, 
εὐχὴν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι, ἐξαγο- 
ρεύων τὴν ἰδίαν παρανομίαν" μετὰ δὲ 
τὰ τέσσαρα ἔτη εἰς τοὺς ἀκροωμένους 
δεχθήσεται, καὶ ἐν πέντε ἔτεσι μετ᾽ 
αὐτῶν ἐξελεύσεται" ἐν δὲ ἑπτὰ ἔτεσι 
μετὰ τῶν ἐν ὑποπτώσει προσευχόμε- 
νος ἐξελεύσεται" ἐν τέσσαρσι συστή- 
σεται μόνον τοῖς πιστοῖς, προσφορᾶς 
δὲ οὐ μεταλήψεται" πληρωθέντων δὲ 
τούτων, μεθέξει τῶν ἁγιασμάτων. 

51 C, 2. (t. 1. p. 969 e.) Flamines, 
qui post fidem lavacri et regenera~ 
tionis sacrificaverunt; eo quod ge- 
minaverint scelera, accedente homi- 
cidio, vel triplicaverint facinus, co- 
hzerente meechia, placuit eos nec in 
fine accipere communionem. 

52 C. 6. (ibid. p. 971 ας.) Si quis 
vero maleficio interficiat alterum, eo 
quod sine idololatria perficere scelus 
non potuit, nec in fine impertien- 
dam esse illi communionem, 


390 XVI. x. 


other, he was not to be received into communion even at the 
hour of death, because here was a conjunction of idolatry with 
murder.’ In like manner another canon 53 of the same Council 
orders, ‘ that if a woman conceive by adultery, in the absence 
of her husband, and after that murder her child, she shall be 
rejected to the very last, because she has doubled her crime.’ 
But the Council of Ancyra is a little more favourable in the 
case of simple fornication joined with murder. For it is 
there*4 observed, ‘ that if a woman committed fornication, and 
murdered her infant, or caused abortion, she should only do 
ten years’ penance,’ though by former canons she was obliged 
to do penance all her life. The Council of Lerida 55 appoints 
seven years’ penance for common murder; but if it were done 
by sorcery, then it was penance for the whole life. 


The great crimes, 


one of 4, And here we may observe, that causing of abortion was 
condemned esteemed one species of murder, and accordingly punished as 
oe Pye. such when wilfully procured. So it is determined not only in 
murder. the fore-mentioned canon of Ancyra, but in the canons of St. 


Basil 5°: ‘ Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ 
penance, whether the embryo be perfectly formed or not.’ So 
again 57; ‘ They are murderers who take medicines to procure 
abortion.’ And so the Council of Trullo 55: ‘ They who give 
medicines to cause abortion, and they who take pernicious 
physic to destroy the embryo in the womb, are to undergo the 


53 C. 63. (ibid. p. 977 b.) Si qua Canonic. Prim.] (CC. t.2.p.1720¢.) 


[mulier] per ἈΠ ΤΣ ἐπα absente 
marito, conceperit, idque post faci- 
nus occiderit, placuit neque in fine 
dandam esse communionem, eo quod 
geminaverit scelus. [Vix in fine, 
ὅτε. 
Ep.] 
54 C, 21. (ibid. Ρ. 1464 c.) Περὶ 
τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν ἐκπορνευουσῶν καὶ 
ἀναιρουσῶν τὰ γεννώμενα, καὶ σπου- 
δαζουσῶν φθόρια ποιεῖν, ὁ μὲν πρό- 
TEpos ὅρος μέχρις ἐξόδου ἐκώλυσεν" 
καὶ τούτῳ συντίθενται" φιλανθρωπό- 
τερον δέ τι εὑρόντες ὡρίσαμεν δε- 
καετῆ χρόνον κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς τοὺς 
ὡρισμένους. 

55 C. 2. (t. 4. p. 1611 d.)... Ipsis 
autem veneficis in exitu tantum com- 
munio tribuatur. 


56 C. 2. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 188. 


Crabb. in marg. t. 1. p. 285.: 


Φθείρασα κατ᾽ ἐπιτήδευσιν φόνου δί- 
κην ὑπέχει" ἀκριβολογία δὲ ἐκ με- 
μορφωμένου καὶ ἀνεξεικονίστου παρ᾽ 
ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν" ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἐκδικεῖ- 
ται οὐ μόνον. τὸ γεννηθησόμενον, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ ἑαυτῇ ἐπιβουλεύσασα". 
πρόσεστι δὲ τούτῳ καὶ ἡ φθορὰ τοῦ 
ἐμβρύου, ἕτερος φόνος, κατά γε τὴν 
ἐπίνοιαν τῶν ταῦτα τολμώντων. 

57 Tbid. c. 8. (CC, ibid. p. 1725 
b.).... Καὶ ai τοίνυν τὰ ἀμβλωθρίδια 
διδοῦσαι φάρμακα φονεύτριαί εἰσι καὶ 
αὗται, καὶ αἱ δεχόμεναι τὰ ἐμβρυο- 
κτόνα δηλητήρια. 

58 C, gr. (t. 6. . 1182 a.) Tas ra 
ἀμβλωθρίδια διδούσας φάρμακα, καὶ 
τὰς δεχομένας τὰ ἐμβρυοκτόνα δηλη- 
τήρια, τῷ τοῦ φονέως ἐπιτιμίῳ καθυ- 
ποβάλλομεν. 


§ 4. 


391 


murder, δ᾽ 6. 


penance of murderers.’ The Council of Lerida 59 puts those, 
who destroy the conception in the womb by certain potions, 
into the same class with those that kill infants after they are 
born; and appoints a course of seven years’ penance for both 
sorts, as joining murder to adultery. 

The private writers among the Ancients with one consent 
declare this to be murder. ‘In the prohibition of murder,’ 
says Tertullian ©, ‘ we are forbidden to destroy the conception 
in the womb, whilst the blood is in its first formation of an 
human body. To hinder that which might be born, is but an 
anticipation or hastening of murder: and it is all one whether 
a man destroy that life which is already born, or disturb that 
which is preparing to be born. He is a man who is in a dis- 
position to be a man, and all fruit is now in its seed or prin- 
ciple of existence.’ This he says in answer to the Heathen 
objection, who charged the Christians with feastmg upon the 
blood of an infant in their sacred mysteries. Minucius δ᾽ in- 
verts the charge upon the Heathen, telling them, ‘ It was their 
own practice by medicated potions to destroy man, that would 
be, in his first original, and for mothers to commit parricide 
before they brought forth.’ ‘ But as for Christians,’ says 
Athenagoras ©, writing in their behalf, ‘ how should they be 
guilty of murdering men, who declare that mothers, who use 
medicines to cause abortion, are murderers, and must give 
account of their wickedness unto God.’ St. Jerom © calls this 


59 C. 2. (t.4. p. 1611.) Hivero, feris et avibus exponere, nunc ad- 


qui male conceptos ex adulterio foe- 
tus, vel editos, necare studuerint, 
vel in uteris matrum potionibus ali- 
quibus colliserint, in utroque sexu 
adulteris post septem annorum cur- 
ricula communio tribuatur. 

69 Apol. c.9. (p.9 4.) Nobis vero 
homicidio semel interdicto, etiam 
conceptum utero, dum adhue san- 
guis in hominem deliberatur [8]. de- 
libatur], dissolvere non licet. Ho- 
micidii festinatio est, prohibere nas- 
ci: nec refert natam quis eripiat 
animam, an nascentem disturbet : 
homo est et qui est futurus, etiam 
fal. et] fructus omnis jam in semi- 
ne est. 

61 Octav. p. 91. (c. 30. p. 151.) 
Vos enim video procreatos filios nunc 


strangulatos misero mortis genere 
elidere. Sunt, que in ipsis visce- 
ribus medicaminibus epotis originem 
futuri hominis exstinguant et parri- 
cidium faciant, antequam pariant.— 
Conf. Cypr. Ep. 49. fal. 52.] ad Cor- 
nel. p. 97. de Parracid. Novat. (p. 
238.).... Uterus uxoris calce per- 
cussus, et abortione properante in 
parricidium partus expressus, &c. 

62 Legat. (ad calc. Just. Mart. p. 
38 c.) Πῶς οὖν, μηδὲ ὁρῶντες, iva μὴ 
ἑαυτοῖς ἄγος καὶ μίασμα προστριψαί- 
μεθα, φονεύειν δυνάμεθα ; καὶ οἱ τὰς 
τοῖς ἀμβλωθριδίοις χρωμένας ἀνδρο- 
φονεῖν τε καὶ λόγον ὑφέξειν τῆς ἐξαμ- 
βλώσεως τῷ Θεῷ φαμὲν, κατὰ ποῖον 
τ te oe λόγον ; 

p. 22. [al. 13.] ad Eustoch. 


392 The great crimes, XVI. x. 


crime in woman, ‘ drinking of barrenness, and murdering of 
infants before they were born.’ And it was a crime which the 
old Roman law punished with banishment, and sometimes 
with death: as Tryphonius®> the lawyer observes out of Tully; 
though Tertullian complains that these laws were very much 
neglected and contemned. However, we see in the Christian 
Church this sort of murder was reckoned a very heinous crime 
by all writers, and punished with great severity by the canons 
against wilful murder in the Church. 


ΤῊ age 5. Indeed, this sort of murder was one species of parricide, 
0 eae ‘ 
tals. which included not only the murder of parents, but of children 


and other relations, to whom men were bound by natural affec- 
tion. And this had a noted and peculiar punishment among 
the old Romans, which was to tie up the parricide in a sack 
with a serpent, an ape, a cock, and a dog, and throw them all 
alive into the sea; of which Gothofred will furnish the curious 
reader with great variety of instances out of the old Roman 
laws and writers. The Lex Pompeia changed this punishment 
into that of the sword, or burning, or throwing to wild beasts. 
But Constantine reduced the ancient punishment; and from 
his law 66, which I shall transcribe, we may take the account 
and description of it. ‘If any one hasten the fate of his 
parent, or son, or any the like relation, which goes under the 
name of parricide, whether he attempt it privately or publicly, 


de Virginit. c. 5. (t. 1. p.96a.)... 
Aliz prebibunt sterilitatem, et nec- 
dum sati hominis homicidium fa- 
ciunt. [Vallarsius in loc. ad voc. 
prebibunt. Ad hunc modum vete- 
res membrane tum a nobis, tum ab 
episcopo Reatino inspect, a qui- 
bus tantum Cistercienses variant, 
que bibunt et satis hominibus ha- 
bent. Sed vitiato prorsus codice 
usus est Editor Benedictinus qui 
prebent pro prebibunt, et nati ho- 
minis pro sati legit, cum palam con- 
stet, eas hic Hieronymum insectari, 
que, ne conciperent de scelere, phar- 
macum aliquod prebibebant. Ep. ] 

64 Digest. 1. 48. tit. 8. ad Leg. 
Cornel. de Sicar. leg. 8. (t.3. p.1471.) 
Si mulierem visceribus suis vim in- 
tulisse, quo partum abigeret, con- 
stiterit : eam in exsilium preses pro- 


vincie exiget.—It. 1. 47. tit. 11. de 
Extraordinar. Criminibus, leg. 4. (t. 
3. p- 1386.) Divus Severus et An- 
toninus rescripserunt, eam que data 
opera partum abegit, [1. 6. abortivum 
fecit, vid. marg. | a preside in tempo- 
rale exsilium dandam. 

65 Digest. 1. 48. tit. 19. leg. 39. 
(t. 3. p. 1559.) Cicero in oratione 
pro Cluentio Avito scripsit, Mile- 
siam quandam mulierem, cum es- 
set in Asia, quod, ab heredibus se- 
cundis accepta pecunia, partum sibi 
medicamentis ipsa abegisset, rei ca- 
pitalis esse damnatam. 

66 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 15. de 
Parricidio, leg. 1. (t. 3. p. 112.) Si 
quis in parentis, aut filii, aut omnino 
affectionis ejus, que nuncupatione 
parricidii continetur, fata properave- 
rit, sive clam sive palam id fuerit 


ὃ 5, 6. 


393 


he shall not be punished with the sword, or with fire, or with 
any other common death, but be sewed up in a sack with 
serpents and other beasts, and be cast into the sea or a river, 
as the nature of the place will admit: that he may be deprived 
of the use of all the elements as long as he remains in being ; 
that he may have neither air to breathe in whilst he lives, nor 
earth to receive him when he is dead.’ This was the punish- 
ment of such as slew father or mother, or son or daughter, or 
any such relation in the direct line: but if it was any other re- 
lation, then only the common death of murderers was inflicted 
on them, as we learn from Justinian’s Institutes 7 and his 
Code ®8, where this matter is determined. Now the Church 
having no power of the sword, could make no such distinction ; 
but punished both sorts in the same way, with the spiritual 
censure of excommunication. 

6. And so she treated all those who laid violent hands upon 
themselves, who were known by the common name of biatha- 
nati, or self-murderers. Because this was a crime that could 
have no penance imposed upon it, she showed her just resent- 
ment of the fact, by denying the criminals the honour and so- 
lemnity of a Christian burial, and letting them lie excommuni- 
cate and deprived of all memorial in her prayers after death. 
‘If any one,’ says the first Council of Braga®, “ bring himself 
to a violent end, either by sword, or poison, or a precipice, or 
an halter, or any other way, no commemoration shall be made 
of him in the oblation, nor shall his body be carried to the 


murder, Se. 


enisus, neque gladio, neque ignibus, 
neque ulla alia pena solemni sub- 
jugetur, sed insutus culeo, et inter 
ejus ferales angustias comprehensus, 
serpentum contuberniis misceatur : 
et, ut regionis qualitas tulerit, vel in 
vicinum mare, vel in amnem pro- 
jiciatur: ut omni elementorum usu 
vivus carere incipiat; ut ei celum 
superstiti, terra mortuo auferatur. 
—Vid. Gothofr. in loc. (ad calc. p. 
ejusd.) Quod prius igitur attinet, &c. 

67 L. 4. tit. 18. de Publicis Judi- 
cis, n. 6. (t. 5. p. 588. sub fin.) Si 
quis autem alias, quam cognatione 
vel affinitate conjunctas sibi per- 
sonas necaverit, poeenam legis Cor- 
neliz de sicariis sustinebit. 


68 Lg. tit. 17. De his qui parentes 
vel liberos occiderunt, leg. 1. (t. 4. 
p- 2371.) In the same words as the 
citation of Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 15. 
leg. I., at note 66, preceding. 

69 C. 34. [al. Bracar. 2. c. 16.] 
(t. 5. Ρ. 841 6.) Placuit, ut hi, qui 
aut per ferrum, aut per venenum, 
aut per precipitium, aut suspendi- 
um, aut guolibet modo, violentam 
sibi ipsis inferunt mortem, nulla pro 
illis in oblatione commemoratio fiat, 
neque cum psalmis ad sepulturam 
eorum corpora [8]. cadavera] dedu- 
cantur ... Similiter et de his placuit 
fieri, qui pro suis sceleribus puni- 
untur. 


Of self- 
murder. 


394 XVILix 


The great crimes, 


grave with the usual psalmody. And they who suffer death 
for their crimes, shall be treated after the same manner.’ The 
reason of treating both these sorts of men in this manner was 
because they were accessory to their own deaths; either di- 
rectly, by offering violence to their own lives; or indirectly, by 
committing such capital crimes as brought them in the course 
of justice to an untimely end. Both the Greeks and Latins 
style them biothanati, or biathanati?°, from offering violence 
to themselves, or coming to a violent death. And Cassian7} 
particularly notes the discipline of the Church then used toward 
such after death, speaking of the case of one Hero, an Egyptian 
monk, whom Satan, under the disguise of a good angel, had 
tempted to throw himself into a deep well, upon presumption 
that no harm could befal him for the great merit of his labours 
and virtues: for which fact, he says, Paphnutius the abbot 
could hardly be prevailed upon not to reckon him among the 
biothanati, or self-murderers, and deny him the privilege of 
being mentioned in the oblation for those that were at rest in 
the Lord. Which is sufficient to show us the manner of treating 
such in the ancient discipline of the Church. 


Ofdismem- Ὁ. It was also reckoned a species or lower degree of this 
bering the ee : - . 
beds crime, for any one to disfigure his own body, by cutting off 


any member or part thereof, without just reason to engage 
him so to do. The canons? forbad any such to be ordained, as 
men who were in effect self-murderers, and enemies of the 
workmanship of God, as has been shown at large in another 
place7, What is further to be noted here is, that this disci- 
pline extended to laymen as well as clergymen. For one of 
the Apostolical Canons74 orders, that a layman, who dismem- 
bers himself, shall be debarred the communion for three years, 


70 [Or Bieothanati: See Ὁ. 1. 
ch. 2. 8. 8. ¥.T. p, 19. nn. 4,5. ED. | 

71 -Collat. 2. Ὁ: 8. (p. 240.) ... Vix 
a presbytero abbate Pafnutio potuit 
obtineri, ut non inter biothanatos 
reputatus etiam memoria et obla- 
tione pausantium judicaretur in- 
dignus. 

72 Apost. 21. [8]. 22.] (Cotel. 
[c. 17.] v. I. p. 440.) ....'O ἑαυτὸν 
ἀκρωτηριάσας, μὴ γινέσθω κληρικός" 
αὐτοφόντης [ἃ]. αὐτοφονευτὴς) γάρ 


ἐστιν καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργίας 
ἐχθρός.----Ο( ΝΊοδη. c.1. (t.2. p.29 a.) 
Εἴ τις ὑγιαίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐξέτεμε, τοῦτον 
καὶ ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ἐξεταζόμενον πεπαῦ- 
σθαι προσήκει" καὶ ἐκ τοῦ δεῦρο μη- 
δένα τῶν τοιούτων χρῆναι προσάγε- 
σθαι. 

73 B. 4. ch. 5. 8.9. V. 2. Β' 45. 

74 C, 23. [al. rely (Cotel. [ς. 17.] 
ibid.) Λαϊκὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀκρωτηριάσας 
ἀφοριζέσθω ἔτη τρία" ἐπίβουλος γάρ 
ἐστιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς. 


§ 7, 8. 395 


because he insidiously makes an attempt upon his own life. But 
if men were either born with a natural defect, or the barbarity 
of the persecutors, or the necessity of a disease, deprived them 
of any member, in order to effect the cure of the body and 
save the whole; in all these cases there was no crime, because 
the thing was involuntary ; in which cases the law itself made 
an exception, and freed men from incurring the censures of 
the Church, as may be seen in the Nicene Canons7°, which 
particularly mention these as excepted cases. I only observe 
one thing further out of the laws of Constantine, that he had 
so great a regard to the face, as the image of the Divine Ma- 
jesty in all human bodies whatsoever, that he would not suffer 
any mark of infamy to be set upon it, to stigmatize the great- 
est criminals. For, whereas by the old Roman laws notorious 
criminals might be branded in the forehead, to make their 
offences more infamous and public, Constantine by one of his 
first laws7® cancelled and revoked this custom, ordering ‘ that 
whatever criminal was condemned either to fight with wild 
beasts, or dig in the mines, he should not be stigmatized in 
the face, but only in the hands or legs, that the face, which 
was formed after the image of the Divine Majesty and Beauty, 
might not be disfigured.’ Which certainly was intended piously 
by Constantine, as a just caution to restrain men from offering 
violence to their own bodies, which were created after the 
image and similitude of God in some measure, though that 
likeness was more visibly seen in the original perfections of 
the soul. 

8. All these cases respect such actions as have some tendency Of involun- 
toward voluntary murder. Besides which the Church allotted ἐνεῤῤ τόσες 
sometimes a proportionable punishment to accidental and inyo- or man- 
luntary murder, though the Civil Law took little or no notice ἐὸν, τοὺ 


murder, δ) 6. 


of it. For by the old Roman and Christian laws77, a master 
75 C. 1. See before, ἢ. 4. ch. 3. comprehendi: quo facies, que ad 
8.9. V. 2. p. 46. ἢ. 70. similitudinem pulchritudinis cceles- 


76 Cod. Theod. 1. g. tit. 40. de 
Penis, leg. 2. (t. 3. p. 293.) Si quis 
in ludum fuerit, vel in metallum, 
_ pro criminum deprehensorum qua- 
litate, damnatus, minime in ejus fa- 
cie scribatur: dum et in manibus 
et in suris possit poena damnationis 
una [sub |scriptione [8]. inscriptione } 


tis est figurata, minime maculetur. 
77 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 12. 
de Emendatione servorum, leg. 1. 
(ibid. p. 79.) Si virgis aut loris ser- 
vum dominus afflixerit, aut custo- 
dize causa in vincula conjecerit, die- 
rum distinctione sive interpretatione 
depulsa, nullum criminis metum 


396 The great crimes, 


was allowed to punish and correct his slave with great severity: 
and if in that correction the slave chanced to die, no action of 
murder could be brought against the master, unless it appeared 
that he used some weapon or fraud in his punishment that 
tended directly to kill him. But notwithstanding this, the 
ecclesiastical law, having a more tender regard even to the life 
of slaves, took cognizance of such cruelties, and obliged the 
actors to a certain term of penance, though the murder was 
only casual, and not directly intended. To this purpose it is 
decreed in the Council of Eliberis7®, ‘that if any mistress in 
the heat of her anger so scourge her slave, that the slave die 
within three days; whereas it might be uncertain whether it 
was a voluntary or a chance murder; if it was a voluntary 
murder, she was to do penance seven years: if casual, only five 
years: and all the favour that was allowed in this case was, 
‘that, if sickness seized her, she might be admitted to communion 
sooner.’ We find a like decree in the discipline of the French 
Church, made by the Council of Epone79, anno 517, ‘that if 
any one put his slave to death without a legal trial before the 
judge, he should expiate his murder by excommunication for 
two years.’ And it is remarked of Cesarius Arelatensis by 


mortuo servo sustineat. Nec vero  simpliciter facta castigatio videatur: 
immoderate suo jure utatur; sed toties etenim dominum non placet 
tunc reus homicidii sit, si voluntate morte servi reum homicidii pronun- 
eum vel ictu fustis aut lapidis occi- tiari, quoties simplicibus questio- 
derit, vel certe telo usus letale vul- nibus domesticam exerceat potesta- 
nus inflixerit; aut suspendi laqueo tem. Si quando igitur servi plaga- 
preceperit ; vel jussione tetra pre- rum correctione, imminente fatali 
cipitandum esse mandaverit ; aut necessitate, rebus humanis exce- 
veneni virus infuderit; vel dilania- dunt, nullam metuant domini ques- 
verit peenis publicis corpus, ferarum  tionem. 

vestigiis latera persecando, vel exu- 78 C. 5. (t. τ. p. 971 Ὁ.) Si qua 
rendo admotis ignibus membra; aut domina bina cnt accensa flagris 


AViw 


tabescentes artus, atro sanguine per- 
mixta sanie defluentes, prope in ip- 
sis adegerit cruciatibus vitam lin- 
quere, sevitia immanium barbaro- 
rum.—Leg. 2. Constant. (ibid. p. 80.) 
Quoties verbera dominorum (8115 
casus servorum comitabitur, ut mo- 
riantur, culpa nudi sunt, qui, dum 
pessima corrigunt, meliora suis ac- 
quirere vernaculis voluerunt. Nam 
requiri in hujusmodi facto volumus, 
in quo interest domini incolume ju- 
ris proprii habere mancipium, utrum 
voluntate occidendi hominis, an vero 


verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut 
intra tertium diem animam cum 
cruciatu effundat; eo quod incer- 
tum sit, voluntate an casu occiderit; 
si voluntate, post septem annos ; sl 
casu, post quinquennii tempora, acta 
legitima poenitentia, ad communio- 
nem placuit admitti. .. Quod si infra 
[al. intra] tempora constituta fuerit 
infirmata, accipiat communionem. 

79 C. 34. (t. 4. p. 1580 d.) Si quis 
servum proprium sine ‘conscientia ju- 
dicis occiderit, excommunicatione bi- 
ennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit. 


§ 8, 9. 397 


the author of his Life*°, ‘that he was used to protest to the 
prefects of the Church, who had then power to inflict corporal 
punishment, that if they scourged any one to an immoderate 
degree, so as that he died under his stripes, they should be 
held guilty of murder.’ Nay, so tender was the Church in this 
point of shedding man’s blood, that she would not ordinarily 
allow any soldier to be ordained to any sacred office of pres- 
byter or deacon; nor suffer her bishops to sit as judges im ca- 
pital causes, where they might be concerned to give sentence 
in cases of blood: as I have had occasion to show more at 
large in their proper places®!, to which I refer the reader. 
Among the Apostolical Canons, there is one®? that orders, 
‘that if any clergyman in a brawl or scuffle smite another, so 
as to kill him, though it were by the first blow, he shall be 
deposed ; if a layman, he shall be cast out of communion :’ and 
St. Basil’s Canons *? impose eleven years’ penance upon all vo- 
luntary murderers whatsoever. 

9. Neither was it only actual murder which they thus cen- False wit- 
sured, but all actions that had any direct or immediate ten- ee 
dency towards it; as, bearing false witness against a man’s life reputed 
life. For, as Lactantius 8+ well expresses it, ‘there is no a 
difference between killing a man with the sword or with the 
tongue: it is murder still in either species, and a violation of 
God’s law against invading the life of man, which admits of no 
exception.’ And therefore the Civil Law 55. appointed the 


murder, Sc. 


80 Cyprianus Gallus, 8. Tolo- 
nensis, 6.11. ap. Surium, 27 Aug. 
(p. 947 im.) Contestabatur ecclesize 
prefectos, si quis juberet quempiam 


τρία δὲ ἔτη ἐν ἀκροωμένοις διατελέ- 
σει" τέσσαρσιν ὑποπίπτων" καὶ ἐνι- 
αὐτῷ ᾿συσταθήσεται μόνον᾽ καὶ τὸ 
ἑξῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια δεχθήσεται. 


diutius flagellari, et illa verbera illi 
mortem afferrent, ut is homicidii 
reum se sciret. 

ΒΥ CR. 4. 8.1. V. I. p. 54. 
and b.11. ch. 7. 8. 4.0. 3. p. 124 

82 C. 66. (al. 64.] (Cotel. fe. 581 
Val. Ds 446. ) Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἐν μάχῃ 
τινὰ κρούσας, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς κρού- 
σματος ἀποκτείνῃ, καθαιρείσθω, διὰ 
τὴν προπέτειαν αὐτοῦ" ἐὰν [4]. εἰ] δὲ 
λαϊκὸς 7 [al. εἴη], ἀφοριζέσθω. 

83 (,, 57. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert.} (CC. t.2. p. pad 6.) 
Ὁ ἀκουσίως φονεύσας ἐν δέκα ἔτεσιν 
ἀκοινώνητος ἔσται τῶν ἁγιασμάτων. 
Οἰκονομηθήσεται δὲ ἐ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ δέκα 
ἔτη οὕτω" δύο μὲν ἔτη προσκλαύσει, 


84 Instit. 1. 6. c. 20. (t. 1. p. 491.) 

. . Neque vero accusare quenquam 
crimine capitali, quia nihil distat, 
utrum ferro an verbo potius occi- 
das, quoniam occisio ipsa prohibe- 
tur, χα. 

85 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 1. de Ac- 
cusationibus, leg. 11. (t. 3. p. 15.) 
Qui alterius famam, fortunas, caput 
denique et sanguinem in judicium 
devocaverit, sciat sibi impendere 
congruam poenam, si quod intende- 
rit non probaverit.—Leg. 19. (ibid. 
p. 24.).... Nec impunitam fore no- 
verit licentiam mentiendi, cum ca- 
lumniantes ad vindictam poscat si- 
militudo supplicii. 


Informers 
against the 
brethren 
in time of 
persecution 
treated as 
murderers. 


398 The great crimes, 


punishment of retaliation to be inflicted on every false accuser, 
that if any one called another man’s credit, or fortune, or life, 
or blood, into question in judgment, and could not make out 
the crime alleged against him, he should suffer the same penalty 
that he intended to bring upon the other. And no one could 
formally implead another at law till he had bound himself to 
this condition, which the law terms °° vineulum inscriptionis, 
the bond of inscription. Now though the ecclesiastical law 
could not inflict the punishment of retaliation for false witness 
against any man’s life; yet all false testimony being a crime 
punishable with excommunication, as we shall see more fully 
under the punishment of sins against the Ninth Commandment, 
we may be sure such false testimony as tended directly to de- 
prive men of their lives, must be reputed by the Church among 
the highest species both of calumny and murder; and conse- 
quently bring them under all the penalties 57 that were due to 
those crimes in any degree whatsoever. 

10. Yea, a bare information, or discovery of the names of 
the brethren to the Heathen magistrates, forasmuch as that in 
times of difficulty and persecution might endanger their lives, 
was justly reputed and censured as murder likewise. The first 
Council of Arles 55. orders, ‘ that if any such informers were 
found among the clergy, and convicted from the public acts 
that they had betrayed either the Holy Scriptures, or the 
sacred utensils, or the names of their brethren to the Heathen, 
they should be degraded from their orders.’ And the Council 
of Eliberis 59 goes a little further, and determines, ‘ that if any 


86 Leg. 14. (ibid. p. 19.).... Non tur: si tamen non fuerit mortale, 


XVI. x. 


prius cujuscunque caput accusatione 
pulset, quam vinculo legis astric- 
tus, parl coeperit pene conditione 
jurgare, &c.—Et leg. 19. (p. 24.)... 
Vinculum inscriptionis accipiat, &c. 
—Vid. Leon. Novel. 77. (ad calc. 
Corp. Jur. Civ. Ed. Amstel. 1663. 
t.2. p. 265.) Θεσπίζομεν τοίνυν, τὸν 
τοιαῦτα Twa πλαστογραφήσαντα, Sv 
ὧν τὸ πλαστογράφημα ἰσχὺν λαμ- 
βάνει, θανάτῳ ὑπάγειν τὸν καθ᾽ οὗ 
συνεπλάσθη, αὐτὸν, παραδιδόμενον τῇ 
τιμωρίᾳ, ἣν καθ᾽ ἑτέρου ἐσκέψατο 
παλαμήσασθαι, ἀποτέμνεσθαι. 

87 C. 74. (t. 1. p. 978 c.) Falsus 
testis, prout est crimen, abstinebi- 


quod objecit, et probaverit [al. ex- 
probaverit], quod non tacuerit, bi- 
ennii tempore abstineatur: si autem 
non probaverit conventui clerico- 
rum, placuit per quinquennium ab- 
stineri. 

88 C. 13. (ibid. p.1428d.) De his 
qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse di- 
cuntur, vel vasa Dominica, vel no- 
mina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis, 
ut quicunque eorum in actis publi- 
cis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, 
ab ordine cleri amoveatur. 

89 C. 73. (ibid. p. 978 b.) Delator 
si quis exstiterit fidelis, et per dela- 
tionem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus 


ee eed ee eae 9. 


eS se mL 


ας «παρ OC 


§ 10, II. murder, &§c. 399 


Christian informed against his brethren, so as that any one 
was proscribed or slain upon his information, he should not be 
received into communion at the last, or not till his last hour, 
as different copies read it.’ 

11. Another sort of interpretative murder was the exposing Exposing 
of infants, against which the Ancients commonly declaim with brary 
great vehemency in the practice of the Heathen. ‘ You accuse ™uder. 
us,’ says Tertullian 90, ‘ of murdering infants ; but let me turn 
to your people, and appeal to their consciences, and then how 
many may I find among those that stand about us, and thirst 
after Christian blood; nay, among those just and severe judges 
that condemn us, who kill their children as soon as they are 
born, or else expose them to cold and famine and dogs? 

You expose your children to the mercy of strangers and the 
next comers, that will take pity on them and adopt them more 
kindly for their own children.’ The same charge is brought 
against them by Minucius Felix 91, that they exposed their 
children, as soon as they were born, to wild beasts and birds 
of prey. Athenagoras 93 says expressly, ‘all such are parri- 
cides or murderers of their children.’ And Lactantius% a little 
more largely inveighs against them upon the same foundation. 
‘ They pretended,’ he says, ‘ by a sort of false piety, to expose 


vel interfectus, placuit eum nec in 92 Legat. (ad calc. Just. Mart. p. 


fine [al. non nisi in fine] accipere 
communionem.—Conf. c. 74. See 
above, n. 87. 

90 Apol. c.g. (p. 9 c.) Quot vultis 
ex his circumstantibus et in Chri- 
stianorum sanguinem hiantibus, ex 
ipsis etiam vobis justissimis et seve- 
rissimis in nos presidibus apud con- 
scientias pulsem, qui natos sibi libe- 
ros enecent? Siquidem et de genere 
necis differt, utique crudelius in aqua 
spiritum extorquetis, aut frigori et 
fami et canibus exponitis.... Filios 
exponitis suscipiendos ab aliqua 
pretereunte misericordia extranea, 
vel adoptandos melioribus parenti- 
bus emancipatis.—Conf. Ad Nation. 
l. 1. τὸς (p. 51 a.) .... Infantes 
vestros alien misericordie exponi- 
tis, aut in adoptionem melioribus 
parentibus, &c. 

91 Octav. p. go. See before, n. 61, 
preceding. 


38 d.) Καὶ μὴ ἐκτιθέναι μὲν τὸ γεν- 
νηθὲν, ὡς τῶν ἐκτιθέντων τεκνοκτο- 
νούντων, πάλιν δὲ τὸ τραφὲν ἀναιρεῖν. 

98 Instit. 1. 6. c. 20. (t. I. p. 491.) 
Quid illi, quos falsa pietas cogit ex- 
ponere? Non [al. num] possunt in- 
nocentes existimari, qui viscera sua in 
preedam canibus objiciunt, et, quan- 
tum in ipsis est, crudelius necant, 

uam si strangulassent.[?] Quis 
danites, quin impius sit, qui alien 
misericordiz locum non tribuit? qui 
etiamsi contingat id, quod voluit, 
ut alatur, addixit certe sanguinem 
suum vel ad servitutem vel ad lu- 
panar. Que autem possint, vel so- 
leant accidere in utroque sexu per 
errorem, quis non intelligit? quis 
ignorat? Quod vel unius (2dipodis 
declarat exemplum, duplici scelere 
confusum.... Tam igitur nefarium 
est exponere, quam necare. 


400 The great crimes, AVI. x 


them only to keep them from starving, because they were poor 
and not able to maintain them; but they cannot be deemed 
innocent, who cast their own bowels as a prey to dogs, and, as 
much as in them lies, kill them more cruelly than if they 
strangled them. Who can question the impiety of him, who 
leaves no room for others to show mercy? But admit that he 
attains his end, which he pretends, that his child is thereby 
nourished and brought up; yet doubtless he condemns his own 
blood either to slavery or the stews; of which there were many 
examples in both sexes.’ Therefore he concludes, ‘ that for men 
to expose their children was the same base and villainous action 
as to kill them.’ And whereas men were apt to complain of 
their poverty, and pretend they were not able to bring up 
many children; he not only answers this from considerations 
of Providence, in whose power the fortunes and possessions of 
all men are, to make rich men poor and poor men rich; but 
is also thought by his prudent advice to have induced Con- 
stantine to enact those two excellent and charitable laws, still 
exstant in the Theodosian Code 9*, whereby it is provided by 
his great munificence in several parts of the empire, ‘ that 
poor parents who had numerous families, which they could not 
maintain, should have relief out of the public revenues of the 
empire; that they might be under no temptation either to ex- 
pose, or kill, or sell, or oppignorate and enslave their children ; 
of which there had been so great complaints under the former 
reigns of Heathenism.’ 

Constantine and Honorius added two other laws 95 to these, 
in favour of such as took care of exposed children, ‘ that parents 
should have no right to claim them again, nor accuse those of 
theft or plagiary who showed mercy on those whom, they ex- 


94. 11. tit. 27. de Alimentis, &c. 
legg. 1, 2. See before, ch. 9. 8. 1. 
n. 2, preceding. 

95 Tbid. 1.5. tit. 7. de Expositis, 
leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 445.) Quicunque pu- 
erum vel puellam, projectam de do- 
mo, patris vel domini voluntate sci- 
entiaque collegerit, ac suis alimentis 
ad robur provexerit, eundem reti- 
neat, sub eodem statu, quem apud 
se recollectum voluerit agitare, hoc 
est, sive filium, sive servum eum 
esse maluerit; omni repetitionis in- 


quietudine penitus submovenda eo- 
rum, qui servos aut liberos propria 
voluntate domo recens natos abje- 
cerint.— Leg. 2. (p. 447.) Nullum 
dominis vel patronis repetendi adi- 
tum relinquimus, si expositos quo- 
dammodo ad mortem voluntas mi- 
sericordiz amica collegerit: nec 
enim dicere suum poterit, quem per- 
euntem contempsit: si modo testes 
episcopalis subscriptio fuerit subse- 
cuta, de qua nulla penitus ad secu- 
ritatem possit esse cunctatio. 


Qu. 


murder, δ᾽ 6. 401 


posed to death, and by their neglect suffered to perish ; pro- 
vided only that the collectors of such children made evidence 
before the bishop that they were really exposed and deserted.’ 
And in this case the ecclesiastical laws concurred with the 
secular, adding the penalty of excommunication to be inflicted 
on all parents, who thus proved themselves guilty of murdering 
their children. For so the canons expressly word it. The 
Council of Vaison first prescribes the method of ascertaining 
such children to the right and possession of those, who became 
their foster-fathers, according to the tenour of the imperial 
laws; and then pronounces those who exposed them guilty of 
murder by their own confession. ‘ A clamour,’ says the Coun- 
911 9, ‘is made on all sides, and complaint brought before us 
concerning exposed children, that they are now no longer ex- 
posed to the mercy of Christians, but to be devoured by dogs, 
because every one refuses to take them up, for fear of prosecu- 
tion from false accusers: we therefore decree, that according 
to the laws of pious emperors and princes, whoever takes up an 
exposed child, shall make testimony thereof unto the Church, 
and the minister on the Lord’s-day shall publish it at the altar, 
that if any one owns it within ten days, he may receive it 
again ; giving a recompence to the finder for his charitable 
care for that term, or letting him keep it for ever as his own 
possession.” But the next canon adds, ‘that if any one, 
after this legal form of proceeding has been observed in the 
case, pretend to claim the exposed infant, or accuse the finder 
as a plagiary or man-stealer, he himself shall be punished as a 
murderer by the censures of the Church.’ 

All which manifestly proves, that in the account of con- 
science and the ancient discipline, the parent, who deserts his 
infant, and leaves it defenceless to the injuries of fortune, or 


% Vasens. 1. [al. 2.] c. 9. (t. 3. 
p- 1459 a.) De expositis, quia con- 
clamatur ab omnibus, querela pro- 
cessit, eos non misericordie jam, 
sed canibus exponi, quos colligere 
calumniarum [8]. calumniatorum] 
metu, quamvis preceptis misericor- 
diz inflexa, mens humana detrectet ; 
id servandum visum est, ut, secun- 
dum statuta fidelissimorum piissi- 
morumque Augustorum et princi- 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


pum, quisquis expositum colligit, 
ecclesiam contestetur, &c. 

7 C. το. (ibid. b.) Si quis... ex- 
positorum hoc ordine collectorum 
repetitor vel calumniator exstiterit, 
ut homicida habendus est, et eccle- 
siastica districtione damnabitur [al. 
feriatur ].—See C. Arelatens. 2. c. 32. 
(t. 4. p. 1014 e.) where the same 
things are repeated. 


pd 


402 XVL.= 


want, or the weather, or wild beasts, is a real murderer, as 
doing that in consequence of which murder necessarily ensues, 
unless some favourable providence interposes to prevent it. 


The great crimes, 


Ifa virgin 12. For the same reason some canons appointed all acces- 
ae eee sories to murder to do the same penance as the murderers 
for grief, themselves. The Council of Ancyra% puts a special case of 
rupteris this nature: ‘A man that is espoused to a woman deflours 
δ ρα her sister, and afterward marries the other: she that is so 
the murder. defiled hangs herself for grief :’ the man, as accessory to the 
murder, is ordered ‘to do ten years’ penance for his crime, be- 
fore he is allowed to appear among the co-standers at the com- 
munion.’ 
Liniste, 13. The case of the laniste, or masters of fencing, was 
or fencing- : * ° - 
masters, much of the same nature. Their art in preparing gladiators 
iene for the theatre was always reputed a scandalous trade; being, 
murder, in effect, no better than teaching men to murder and butcher 
ἘΠΕ one another; and therefore the Church would never allow it 
demned. as a lawful profession. Tertullian99 says expressly, ‘that the 


prohibition of murder showed there was no place for fencers 
in the Church: for they were impleaded guilty of shedding 
that blood, which they taught others to shed.’ The Author of 
the Constitutions! puts gladiators in the number of those who 
were to be rejected from baptism. And Constantine prohibited 
the art itself as unchristian, ordering? such criminals as were 
used to be condemned to fight for their lives upon the stage, 
rather to be sent to the mines, that they might suffer punish- 
ment without blood. For though in the beginning of his reign 
he allowed it to be used as a punishment for some crimes: as 
in the case of plagiary or man-stealing, which they that were 


9 C. 26. (t. 1. p. 1464 6.) Μνη- 
στευσάμενός τις κόρην, προσεφθάρη 
τῇ ἀδελφῇ αὐτῆς, ὡς καὶ ἐπιφορέσαι 
αὐτήν᾽ ἔγημε δὲ τὴν μνηστὴν μετὰ 
ταῦτα' ἡ δὲ φθαρεῖσα ἀπήγξατο" οἱ 
συνειδότες ἐκελεύσθησαν ἐν δεκαετίᾳ 
δεχθῆναι εἰς τοὺς συνεστῶτας κατὰ 
τοὺς ὡρισμένους βαθμούς. 

99. De Idolol. c. 11. (p. οἱ d.) Sic 
et homicidii interdictio ostendit mi- 
hi lanistam quoque ab ecclesia ar- 
ceri: nec per se non faciet, quod fa- 
ciendum aliis subministrat. 

1 L. 8. c. 32. (Cotel. v. 1. p. 412.) 


Τῶν ἐπὶ “σκηνῆς ἐάν τις προσείη ἀνὴρ, 
ἢ γυνὴ, ἢ ἡνίοχος, ἢ μονομάχος, ““.ον 
ἢ παυσάσθωσαν ἢ ἀποβαλλέσθωσαν. 

2 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. 15. tit. 12. 
de Gladiatoribus, leg.1. (t.5. p.395-) 
Cruenta spectacula in otio civili et 
domestica quiete. non placent: qua- 
propter, qui omnino gladiatores esse 
prohibemus, eos, qui forte delicto- 
rum causa hance conditionem atque 
sententiam mereri consueverant, me- 
tallo magis facies inservire, ut sine 
sanguine suorum scelerum pcenas 
agnoscant. 


§ 12, 13,14. murder, Sc. 403 


guilty of were condemned? to fight for their lives with wild 
) beasts or one another: yet afterwards he seems to have re- 
voked this also. And Valentinian absolutely forbade+ any 
Christian or any Palatine soldier to be condemned to this pu- 
nishment. Nay, some of the wiser Heathens always abhorred 
| and declared against it. And therefore there was more reason 
| to prohibit the whole art and practice of gladiators under the 
Christian institution, which Honorius the emperor? quite abo- 
lished and destroyed. 
14. But the Christian laws and rules of the Church went a Spectators 
little further: they not only condemned the murders of the ai a, 
stage, but forbad any one to be a spectator of them, under the ΠΕΣ 
penalty of being reputed accessory to the murder. Cyprian 5, accounted 
describing the impiety and barbarity of these inhuman games, 2°°ess"es 


7 rey to murder 
elegantly styles all spectators of them oculis parricidas, men also. 


3 Ibid. 1. 9. tit. 18. ad Legem Fa- 
biam, leg. 1. (t.3. p. 154.) Plagiarii, 
qui viventium filiorum miserandas 
infligunt parentibus orbitates, me- 
talli peena cum ceteris ante cognitis 
suppliciis tenebantur. Si quis ta- 
men ejusmodi reus fuerit oblatus, 
posteaquam super crimine patuerit, 
servus quidem vel libertate donatus, 
bestiis primo quoque munere obji- 
ciatur; liber autem sub hac forma 
in ludum detur gladiatorium, ut an- 
tequam aliquid faciat, quo se defen- 
dere possit, gladio consumatur. 

4 Ibid. tit. 40. de Peenis, leg. 8. 
{p. 299.) Quicunque Christianus sit 
in quolibet crimine deprebensus, lu- 
do non adjudicetur. Quod si quis- 


quam judicum fecerit, et ipse gravi- 
ter notabitur, et officium ejus mulcte 
maxim subjacebit.— Leg. 11. (p. 
302.) Neminem de numinis nostri 
sacrario prodeuntem arena susci- 
piat, lanista doceat, seva meditatio 
et pugnatrix exerceat; multa siqui- 
dem possunt esse supplicia, quibus 
culpa plectatur. 

ὃ. Vide Pagi, Crit. in Baron. an. 
404. n. 5. [al. 4.] ex Prudentio con- 
tra Symmach. 1. 2. (t. 2. p.59.) Pru- 
dentius Honorium Rome hoc anno 
positum cohortatur ad ludos gladi- 
atorios Rome penitus tollendos, vo- 
tumque et preces pro iis tollendis 
apud principem interponit. Sic e- 
nim de virginibus agens scribit : 


Quod genus ut sceleris jam nesciat aurea Roma, 
Te precor, Ausonii dux augustissime regni, 

Et tam triste sacrum jubeas, ut cetera, tolli. 
Perspice: nonne vacat meriti locus iste paterni, 
Quem tibi supplendum Deus et genitoris amica 
Servavit pietas? solusne premia tantz 

Virtutis caperet? Partem tibi, nate, reservo. 
Dixit, et integrum decus intactumque reliquit. 
Arripe dilatam tua, dux, in tempora famam, 
Quodque patri superest, laudis successor habeto. 
Ile urbem vetuit taurorum sanguine ting); 

Tu mortes miserorum hominum prohibeto litari. 
Nullus in urbe cadat, cujus sit poena voluptas. 


6 Ad Donat. p. 5. (p. 4.) Et in 
tam impiis spectaculis tamque diris 


et funestis, esse se non putant ocu- 
lis parricidas. 
pd2 


404 The great crimes, AVL‘ 


guilty of murder with their eyes; wmtimating, that no one 
could entertain himself with the pleasing sight of them without 
partaking in the guilt, and defiling his soul with the contagion 
of the murders committed in them. ‘ There is little difference,’ 
says Athenagoras’. ‘ between seeing such murders and commit- 
ting them; and therefore we wholly abstain from the sight of 
them, lest any of their wickedness and defilement should cleave 
to us.’ Lactantius§, in his elegant and fluent way, declaims more 
copiously and vehemently against them: ‘He that accounts it 
a pleasure,’ says he, ‘to see a man killed before his eyes, 
though it be a criminal condemned for his villainies, pollutes 
his conscience, as much as if he were both a spectator and par- 
taker of any secret murder. And yet they call these things 
only games and diversions, wherein human blood is shed. So 
far are men forsaken of humanity, that they count it but sport 
to destroy men’s lives or souls, being really more wicked and 
injurious than those very criminals, whose blood they make 
their diversion.’ Upon this account, in the eye of the Church, 
to frequent these inhuman games was the same thing as to com- 
mit murder, and no man could associate with such company, 
and follow such diversions, but he was reputed to bid adieu to 
all humanity, piety, and justice, and to make himself partaker 
in all the guilt of those public murders. 


Famishers ἰδ. The charge of murder was also brought against those 
of the poor . Ε : 

andindi- Who denied the poor their necessary maintenance, and de- 
τὰ frauded their indigent parents of their proper livelihood, suf- 
pute ᾿ ὃ : : 

guilty of fering them to perish by famine or want, against the laws of 
murder, 


piety and natural affection. The fourth Council of Carthage? 
upon this account terms those, who defrauded the Church of 
the oblations of the dead, egentium necatores, murderers of the 
poor, and, as such, orders them to be prosecuted to excommu- 


7 Legat. (p. 38 b.) Ἡμεῖς, πλησίον 
εἶναι τὸ ἰδεῖν τὸν φονευόμενον τοῦ 
ἀποκτεῖναι νομίζοντες, ἀπηγορεύσαμεν 
τὰς τοιαύτας θέας. 

8 Instit. 1.6. ¢. 20. (t. £. p. 490.) 
Qui hominem, quamvis ob merita 
damnatum, in conspectu suo pro 
voluptate jugulari computat, con- 
scientiam suam polluit, tam scilicet 
quam si homicidii, quod fit occulte, 
spectator et particeps fiat. Hos ta- 
men ludos vocant, in quibus huma- 


nus sanguis effunditur. Adeo longe 
ab hominibus secessit humanitas, ut 
cum animas hominum interficiant, 
ludere se opinentur, nocentiores iis 
omnibus, quorum sanguinem volup- 
tati habent. 

9 C.g5. (t. 2. p.1207 b.) Qui ob- 
lationes defunctorum aut negant ec- 
clesiis, aut cum difficultate reddunt, 
tanquam egentium necatores ex- 
communicentur. 


δ; 16. murder, δ᾽. 405 


nication. And Cyprian?®, speaking of the villainies of Novatus 
says, among other instances of his being guilty of parricide 
and murder,’ such as causing his wife to miscarry by a kick on 
the belly, when she was great with child, ‘he suffered his own 
father to starve and perish by famine, and left him unburied 
after death.’ For which crimes he had certainly been expelled, 
not only from the presbytery, but from all communion with 
the Church, had not the difficult times of approaching persecu- 
tion prevented the day of his trial, and given him opportunity 
to escape the condemnation that was due to him by the just 
discipline and censures of the Church. All these were reckoned 
guilty of murder, indirectly at least, as accessories and par- 
takers in the sin, though their hands were not actually and di- 
rectly engaged in shedding of blood. 
16. But none were reputed more guilty of murder than they And all 
by whose authority it was committed: though the inferior pei Bhs 
instruments were not acquitted, yet the crime was chiefly laid thority 
to the charge of the principal authors. Therefore, as David pate 
was charged by Nathan with the murder of Uriah, though he 
was slain through the treachery of Joab by the sword of the 
children of Ammon, so Theodosius, when by his orders and 
authority seven thousand men were slaughtered at Thessalo- 
nica, was charged by St. Ambrose as the principal author of 
the murder, and according to the rules of discipline denied the 
communion of the Church, till he had made a suitable and rea- 
sonable satisfaction. For though, as Cyprian complains to his 
friend Donatus!!, under the Heathen emperors public murder 
was esteemed a virtue, which in private men was punished as a 
great crime; yet it was not so under the Christian institution, 
but there was a power to bring even emperors and princes 
under discipline for such public offences, as appears from the 
case of Theodosius now mentioned. And the case of the mu- 
nerarii, that is, such Christian magistrates as exhibited the 
munera, or inhuman games, where men murdered one another 
upon the stage, is a further evidence of this power and prac- 


10 Ep. 49. [4]. »2.1 ad Cornel. p. tione properante in parricidium par- 
97- (p. 238.) Pater etiam ejus in tus expressus. 
vico fame mortuus, et ab eo in Il P. 5. (p. 4.) Homicidium cum 
morte postmodum nec sepultus. U- admittunt singuli crimen est; virtus 
terus uxoris calce percussus, et abor- vocatur cum publice geritur, 


406 The great crimes, XV. ‘= 


tice: for the canons of the Church order all such magistrates 
to be excommunicated?2, as contributing by their authority 
and expenses both to idolatry and murder. So that murder, 
in whatever species it appeared, or by whatever persons it 
was committed, was always reputed a crime of the first magni- 
tude, exposing men to the utmost severity of ecclesiastical 
censure. 

Enmityand 17. And it must be added, that all open enmity and quar- 

strife and relling, strife, envy, anger, and contention, professed malice 


contention, 
punished as and hatred, were punished with excommunication, as tendencies 


oe ~ toward this great sin and lower degrees of murder. St. John 
murder. —_ says, “ He that hateth his brother is a murderer, and no mur- 
derer hath eternal life abiding in him.” [1 John 3, 15.] Our 
Saviour also declares, “That he that is angry with his brother 
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and who- 
soever shall say to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the 
council : but whosoever shall say, Thou fool! shall be in danger 
of hell-fire.” [Matth. 5, 22.] Now agreeably to these instruc- 
tions, the Church, to prevent or correct all tendencies toward 
the great sin of murder, laid proper restraints and penalties 
upon the unruly passions of men, whenever they discovered 
themselves in any visible acts of malice or hatred, and strife or 
contention. The communion was the great symbol of love and 
charity, and the covenant of peace and unity, and the great 
uniter of men’s hearts and affections: therefore all who visibly 
wanted these necessary qualifications, were thought unworthy 
of that venerable mystery, and accordingly obliged by the dis- 
cipline of the Church, till they were so qualified, to abstain 
from it. The fourth Council of Carthage made an order?3, 
‘that the oblations of such as were at enmity or open variance 
with their brethren, should neither be received into the trea- 
sury of the Church nor at the altar: which was as much as 
to say, they should not communicate whilst they were in that 
condition. And the second Council of Arles!4 removes those 
from the privilege of joining with the assemblies of the Church 


12 See ch. 4. s. 8. p. 208. 14 C. 31. [al. 50.] (t. 4. p. 1016 e.) 

18. C. 93. (Ὁ. 2. p.1207 b.) Obla- Hi, qui publicis inter se odiis exar- 
tiones dissidentium fratrum, neque descunt, ab ecclesiasticis conventi- 
in sacrario, neque in gazophylacio bus sunt removendi, donee ad pa- 
recipiantur, cem recurrant, 


407 


murder, δ) 6. 


᾿ ὃ 17: xit. 


who break forth into public hatreds and animosities one against 
another, until they are reconciled, and return to peace again. 
They that evil entreat their servants or slaves with stripes, 
famine, or hard bondage, are ordered to be refused communion 
by the rules of the Constitutions!®: and Chrysostom 10 often 
warns the clergy, ‘that they should admit no cruel or unmer- 
ciful man to the communion. For if they gave the eucharist 
wittingly to any such flagitious man, his blood would be re- 
quired at their hands: though it be a general, though it be a 
consul, though it be him that wears the crown, restrain him, if 
he comes unworthily : thou hast greater power than he.’ But 
this was to be understood of great and enormous violations of 
charity, expressing themselves in open and professed acts of 
cruelty ; not of every lower degree of anger, especially rash 
and sudden anger, which, as I showed before!’, was to be 
cured by other methods, and not by the highest remedies of 
severity in the exercise of ecclesiastical censure. 

These were the rules of discipline, whereby the Church pro- 
ceeded in censuring and punishing the great sin of murder, 
with all its species and appendages, so far as it was either pos- 
sible or proper to take notice of them: reserving the rest for 
the gentler methods of admonition and verbal correction, which 
in ordinary cases and lighter transgressions of this kind was 
sufficient for the amendment of the sinner. 


CHAP. XI. 


Of great transgressions against the Seventh Commandment, 
fornication, adultery, incest, Se. 


1. ΑΝΟΤΗΒΕ sort of great crimes, which always made men The pun- 


ishment of 
liable to the severities of ecclesiastical discipline, were the sins fornication. 


> 


ὑμᾶς τοὺς διακονουμένους" δὰ itis οὐ 
μικρὰ κόλασις ὑμῖν ἐστιν, εἰ συνει- 
δότες τινὶ πονηρίαν συγχωρήσητε με- 


τασ civ ταύτης τῆς τραπέζης" τὸ 
[yap] αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ἐκ- 


15 L. 4. c. 6. [1]. 5:} ἐμ ας 
Pp. 294. ) Φευκταῖοι δὲ αὐτῷ.... οἱ τοῖς 
ἑαυτῶν οἰκέταις πονηρῶς χρώμενοι" 
πληγαῖς, φημι, καὶ λιμῷ καὶ κακο- 
ουλίᾳ. 


16 Hom. 82. [Bened. 82. al. 82.1} 
in Matth. p. 705. (t. 7. Ρ. 789 ὃ.) 
Μηδεὶς ἀπάνθρωπος προσίτω, μηδεὶς 
ὠμὸς καὶ ἀνελεὴς, μηδεὶς [ὅλως Ben. 
et Sav .| ἀκάθαρτος. Ταῦτα πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
τοὺς μεταλαμβάνοντας λέγω, καὶ πρὸς 


ζητηθήσεται τῶν ὑμετέρων. Κἀν στρα- 
τηγός τις ἦ, κὰν ὕπαρχος, κἂν αὐτὸς 
ὁ τὸ διάδημα περικείμενος, ἀναξίως δὲ 
προσίῃ, κώλυσον, μείζονα ἐκείνου τὴν 
ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις. 


17. Ch. 3. 8.14. p. 177. 


Of adul- 
tery. 


408 The great crimes, 


of uncleanness, or transgressions of the Seventh Commandment: 
such as fornication, adultery, ravishment, incest, polygamy, 
and all sorts of unnatural defilement with beasts or mankind, 
and all things leading or paving the way to such impurities, as 
rioting and intemperance, writing or reading lascivious books, 
acting or frequenting obscene stage-plays, allowing or main- 
taining harlots, or whatever of the like kind may be called 
making provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. 

To begin with simple fornication: the Heathen laws were so 
far from laying any effectual restraints upon it, that they not 
only allowed it with impunity, but many times encouraged it 
in the very sacred rites and mysteries of their gods, as the 
ancient Apologists often object against their religion: whereas 
the Christian religion laid great and severe penalties upon all 
such as, under the name of Christians, were found guilty of it. 
The Apostolical Canons!®, and those of Neoczsarea}9, forbid 
such ever to be received into holy orders, or command them 
to be suspended, if unwittingly ordained. The Council of Eli- 
beris?° suspends virgins who keep not their virginity a whole 
year from the communion; obliging them to marry those that 
defiled them: otherwise they are to undergo five years’ solemn 
repentance ; because, if they are corrupted by others, they be- 
come guilty of adultery, which, as we shall presently see, had 
a more severe punishment than simple fornication. 

2. For whereas St. Basil’s Canons appoint seven years’ 
penance for fornication only, they prescribe fifteen for adul- 


XVI. xi. 


tery 21, and sometimes 33 


18 C. ὅτ. [al. 60.] (Cotel. [c. 53.] 
Node ps 445-) Εἴ τις κατηγορία γένη- 
σας κατὰ πιστοῦ, πορνείας ἢ μοιχείας, 
ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς ἀπηγορευμένης πράξεως, 
καὶ ἐλεγχθῇ, εἰς κλῆρον μὴ προσα- 
γέσθω. 

19 C, 9. (f: ΟΣ 1481 6.) Πρεσβύ- 
τερος, ἐὰν προημαρτηκὼς σώματι προ- 
αχθῇ, καὶ ὁμολογήσῃ. ὅ οτι ἥμαρτε πρὸ 
τῆς χειροτονίας, μὴ προσφερέτω, μέ- 
νὼν ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς διὰ τὴν ἄλλην 
σπουδήν. 

20 C. 14. (ibid. p. 972 α.}) Virgines, 
que virginitatem suam non custodi- 
erint, si eosdem, qui eas violave- 
runt, duxerint et tenuerint maritos, 
eo quod solas nuptias violaverint 


double the number. 


The Council of 


[nempe, non Deo dedicate, ut can. 
13-] post annum sine peenitentia 
reconciliari debebunt. Vel si alios 
cognoverint viros, eo quod meechatze 
sint, placuit, per quinquennii tem- 
pora, acta legitiina poenitentia, ad- 
mitti eas ad communionem. 

21 Ὁ. 58. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. "Tert.] (CC. t. 2. p. 1749 8.) 
‘O μοιχεύσας ἐν ιε΄ ἔτεσιν ἀκοινώνητος 
ἔσται τῶν ἁγιασμάτων, K.T.A.—C.59. 
(ibid. b.) ‘O πόρνος ἐν ἑπτὰ ἔτεσιν 
ἀκοινώνητος ἔσται τῶν ἁγιασμάτων, 
Kea A 

22 C. 7. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 188.] 
(CC. ibid. Ρ- 1724 a.) Τοὺς be ἐν 


τριάκοντα ἔτεσι μετανοήσαντας ἐπὶ τῇ 


§ 2. 


adultery, δ᾽ 6. 409 


Ancyra 33 imposes seven years for adultery, but makes no ex- 
press mention of fornication. The Council of Eliberis appoints 
five years’?4 penance for a single act of adultery, and ten 5 
years if repeated: but if any continued in it all their lives, 
they were not to have the communion at their last hour. And 
in some of the African Churches before the time of St. Cyprian 
this was the common punishment for all adultery. For he 
says 26, ‘Some of his predecessors refused the peace of the 
Church to all adulterers, and shut the door of repentance 
entirely against them; though it was otherwise in his time, 
when adulterers had a certain term of penance appointed them, 
after which they might be restored to the peace of the Church.’ 
Whence Bishop Pearson?’ rightly reproves Albaspineus for 
asserting that adulterers were never received into communion 
before the time of Cyprian. For Cyprian says expressly they 
were received to repentance in most Churches, though rejected 
by some: and it appears plainly from Tertullian, who lived 
before Cyprian, and wrote his book De Pudicitia, as a Mon- 
tanist, against the Catholics for receiving adulterers to their 
communion. Yet in the case of the clergy the law continued 
still a little more severe. For by a rule of the Council of 
Eliberis 35, if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon was convicted of 


3 , δ > > ᾿ » > 
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἣν ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ ἔπραξαν, οὐκ 


8. 2. p. 388. n. 48. 
27 Vindic. 


ἀμφιβάλλειν ἡμᾶς προσῆκεν εἰς τὸ 
παραδέξασθαι. 

28 C. 20. (t. 1. p. 1464 b.) Ἐάν 
τινος γυνὴ μοιχευθῆ, ἢ μοιχεύσῃ τις, 
ἐν ἑπτὰ ἔτεσι δοκεῖ αὐτὸν τοῦ τελείου 
τυχεῖν, κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς τοὺς προά- 

ovTas. 

24 C, 69. (ibid. p. 977 6.) Si quis 
forte habens uxorem, semel fuerit 
lapsus, placuit eum quinquennium 
agere de ea re peenitentiam. 

25 C. 64. (ibid. c.) Si qua mulier 
usque in finem mortis suze cum ali- 
eno fuerit viro mechata, placuit nec 
in fine dandam ei esse communio- 
nem. Si vero eum reliquerit, post 
decem annos recipi ad [al. accipiat] 
communionem, acta legitima pceni- 
tentia. 

26 Ep. 52. [al. 55.] ad Antonian. 
p. 109. (p. 247.) Meechis a nobis 
peenitentia conceditur, et pax datur. 
Et quidem, &c.—See before, ch. to. 


Ignatian rer & 
(Cotel. v. 2. p. 378.) Sed nec illud 
verum est, quod Albaspinzus ob- 
servat. Ante etatem S. Cypriani 
etiam meechi ad peenitentiam ad- 
mittebantur. Ita ipse testatur Epi- 
stola 52., Et quidem apud antecesso- 
res nostros, &§c..... Ab episcopis 
igitur Africanis per poenitentiam re- 
cepti sunt meechi ante «tatem Cy- 
priani, adeoque ante Novatianos. 
Idque ab ecclesia factum narrat Cy- 
prianus ; nullum igitur tune tempo- 
ris in ecclesia Africana decretum 
exstitit de adulteris penitus a pe- 
nitentia removendis, &c. 

28 C. 18. [al. 19.] (t. 1. p. 973 a.) 
Episcopi, presbyteri, et diacones, si 
in ministerio positi, detecti fuerint 
quod sint meechati, placuit et prop- 
ter scandalum, et propter nefandum 
[4]. profanum] crimen, nec in fine 
eos communionem accipere debere. 


410 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


adultery, he was to be denied communion to the very last, as 
well for the greatness of the crime, as for the scandal he gave 
to the Church thereby.’ And by another canon of the same 
Council 29, ‘ every clergyman, who knew his wife to be guilty 
of committing adultery, and did not presently put her away, 
was also to be denied communion to the very last: that they, 
who ought to be examples of good conversation, might not by 
their practice seem to show others the way to sin.’ And the 
Council of Neoczsarea has a decree 2° of near affinity to this, 
‘that if a layman’s wife be convicted of adultery, it shall 
render him incapable of orders: or, if after his ordination she 
commits adultery, he must dismiss her; under pain of degra- 
dation from his ministerial office if he retains her,’ 

The Civil Law both under the Heathen and Christian Em- 
perors made this crime capital, as Gothofred3! shows by various 
instances both out of the Code and the Pandects. And Constans, 
the son of Constantine, in particular appointed its punishment 
to be the same as that of parricide, which was burning alive, or 
drowning in a sack, with a serpent, an ape, a cock, and a dog 
tied up with the criminals. ‘ When adultery,’ says he 33, ‘is 
proved by manifest evidence, no dilatory appeal shall be al- 
lowed: but the judge is obliged to punish those, who are guilty 


29 Ὁ. 65. (ibid. p.977d.) Sicujus teste Capitolino. Et Constantius 


clerici uxor fuerit moechata, et sciat 
eam maritus suus meechari, et eam 
non statim projecerit, nec in fine 
accipiat communionem : ne ab his, 
qui exemplum bonz conversationis 
esse debent, [ab eis] videantur ma- 
gisteria scelerum procedere. 

80 C. 8. (ibid. p. 1481 ἃ.) Γυνή 
Tivos μοιχευθεῖσα λαϊκοῦ ὄντος, ἐὰν 
ἐλεγχθῇ φανερῶς, ὁ τοιοῦτος εἰς ὑπη- 
ρεσίαν ἐλθεῖν οὐ δύναται. ᾿Ἐὰν δὲ 
καὶ μετὰ τὴν χειροτονίαν μοιχευθῇ, 
ὀφείλει ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. ᾿Ἐὰν δὲ συ- 
ζῇ, οὐ δύναται ἔχεσθαι τῆς ἐγχειρι- 
σθείσης αὐτῇ ὑπηρεσίας. 

31 In Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 36. 
Quorum appellationes, &c., leg. 4. 
(t. 4. p. 297. sect. ult.) Quod peenze 
ipsius atrocitatem attinet, magna pro- 
fecto ea, cum culei et ignis pcena 
h.1.imponatur. Certe et antea Opi- 
lus Macilius adulterii reos vivos 
simul incendit junctis corporibus, 


ipse vivicomburii poenam servo, qui 
rem cum domina habuisset, impo- 
suit: Sup. de mulierib. que se prop. 
serv. At enim neque hec poena 
postea mansit: nam et sub Valen- 
tiniano Cethegus senator adulterii 
reus delatus cervice periit abscissa, 
ut testatur Am. Marcellinus, 1. 28., 
qui idem scribit eadem poena fcemi- 
nas aliquot itidem ob idem crimen 
affectas tum temporis. Et sub Ma- 
joriano relegationis tantum, vel ad 
summum deportationis peena cum 
bonorum confiscatione, jureque cz- 
dendi ejus si rediret, poena statuta. 

82 Cod. Theod. (ibid. p. 295.) ..-. 
Ut manifestis probationibus adulte- 
rio probato frustratoria provocatio 
minime admittatur: cum pari simi- 
lique ratione sacrilegos nuptiarum, 
tanquam manifestos parricidas, in- 
suere culeo vivos, vel exurere, ju- 
dicantem oporteat. 


adultery, &c. 411 


of the sacrilegious violation of marriage, as manifest parricides, 
either by drowning them in a culeus, or sack, or burning them 
alive.’ And this was one of those crimes to which the em- 
perors at Easter would grant no indulgence 33, nor allow any 
appeal to be made from the judge to themselves in favour of 
the criminals, as appears not only from this law of Constans, 
but several others 34, 

It may not be amiss also to observe out of one of the laws of 
Theodosius 85, that for a Christian man or woman to marry a 
Jew, was reputed the same thing as committing adultery, and 
made the offending party liable to the same punishment ; be- 
cause it was at least a spiritual adultery, and a sacrilegious 
prostitution of the members of Christ to the insolence and 
power of his greatest enemies. And indeed there is nothing 
that the Ancients 86 more generally condemn than this of 
Christians joming in marriage with Jews, or Heathens, or 
heretics, or any persons of a different religion ; not because it 
was strictly and properly adultery, but because it was against 
the rule of the Apostle, which orders women to marry “ only 
in the Lord,” and therefore dangerous to the faith, by running 
themselves into temptation of changing their religion, either 


33 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 38. de In- 
dulgentiis Criminum, legg. 3, 4, 6, 
4,8. See before, ch. 4. 8. 2. p. 197. 
n. 3., and ch. Io. s. 1. p. 387. n. 43. 

84 Ibid. 1. 9. tit. 36. Quorum ap- 
pellationes non recipiantur, legg. 1, 
4, 7- See before, ch. 10. 8.1. p. 387. 


Ὡ. 44. 

35 Ibid. 1. 9. tit. 7. ad Leg. Jul. 
de Adulteriis, leg. 5. (t. 3. p. 62.) 
Ne quis Christianam mulierem in 
matrimonium Judzeus accipijat, ne- 
que Judzz Christianus conjugium 
sortiatur. Nam si quis aliquid hu- 
jusmodi admiserit, adulter vicem 
commissi hujus crimen obtinebit. 

36 Ambros. de Abraham. 1. 1. c.9. 
(t. 1. p. 309 c. n. 84.) Cave, Chri- 
stiane, Gentili aut Judzo filiam tuam 
tradere: cave, inquam, Gentilem aut 
Judzeam, atque alienigenam, hoc est, 
hzreticam, et omnem alienam a fide 
tua uxorem accersas [8]. arcessas | 
tibi—Conf. Augustin. Ep. 234. [al. 
255-] ad Rustic. (t. 2. p. 668 f.) Si 


enim tu quam certissime noveris, 
etiam si nostra absolute sit potesta- 
tis, quamlibet puellam in conjugium 
tradere, tradi a nobis Christianam 
nisi Christiano non posse: &c.— 
C. Eliber. c. 16. (t. 1. p. 972 d.) 
Heretici si se transferre noluerint 
ad ecclesiam Catholicam, nec ipsis 
Catholicas dandas esse puellas: sed 
neque Judzis, neque hereticis [8]. 
ethnicis] dare placuit; eo quod nulla 
possit esse societas fideli cum infi- 
deli. Si contra interdictum fecerint 
parentes, abstineri [8]. abstinere] per 
quinquennium placet.—C. Laodic. 
c. 10. (ibid. p. 1497 d.) Περὶ τοῦ, 
μὴ δεῖν τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀδιαφόρως 
πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν συνάπτειν τὰ 
ἑαυτῶν παιδία αἱρετικοῖς. ---- Ὁ. 31. 
(ibid. p. 1501 4.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ πρὸς 
πάντας αἱρετικοὺς ἐπιγαμίας ποιεῖν, ἢ 
διδόναι υἱοὺς, ἢ θυγατέρας" ἀλλὰ μᾶλ- 
λον λαμβάνειν, εἴγε ἐπαγγέλλοιντο 
Χριστιανοὶ γίνεσθαι. 


412 The great crimes, XVI. xi 


by perverting and corrupting the faith, or wholly deserting 
and apostatizing from it. 

3. Another sort of uncleanness was committed by incestuous 
marriages, that is, when persons of near alliance, either by 
consanguinity or affinity, made marriages one with another, 
within the degrees prohibited by God in Scripture. As if a 
man married his father’s wife, or his wife’s daughter, or his 
brother’s wife, or his wife’s sister; which are cases in affinity, 
particularly mentioned in the Council of Auxerre 86. as pro- 
hibited cases. St. Basil #7 says, incest with a sister was to be 
punished with the same penance as murder, and all incestuous 
conjunction 38. as adultery. He that committed incest with an 
half-sister 89 was to do eleven years’ penance; and he who 
committed incest with his son’s wife4° was to do the same. 
He who successively married two sisters?! was to do the 
penance of an adulterer, which was fifteen years. And about 
all cases of this nature the Ancients were perfectly agreed. 
Herein especially the Christian morals exceeded the Heathen. 
Among the Persians it was allowed by law for the father to 


Of incest. 


36 Ce, 27—30. (t. 5. p. 960 a, b.) 
Non licet, ut aliquis suam novercam 
accipiat uxorem. Non licet, ut fi- 
liam uxoris suze quis accipiat. Non 
licet, ut relictam fratris sui quis in 
matrimonium ducat. Non licet, du- 
aS sorores, si una mortua fuerit, 
alteram in conjugium accipere. 

87 (, ἢ [Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert. | (CC. t. 2. p. 1352. 
[corrige 1752] a.) ᾿Αδελφομιξία τὸν 
τοῦ φονέως χρόνον ἐξομολογήσεται. 

38 C. 68. [ Oper. Basil. ibid.] (CC. 
ibid. b.) ‘H τῆς ἀπειρημένης συγγε- 
νείας εἰς γάμον ἀνθρώπων σύστασις. 
εἰ φωραθείη, ἁ ὡς ἐν ἁμαρτήμασιν γε: 
γενημένη [al. ἀνθρώπων γινομένη) τὰ 
τῶν μοιχῶν ἐπιτίμια δέξεται. 

89 C. 75. [Oper. Basil. ibid. ] (CC. 
ibid. Ῥ' 1753 b.) Ὃ ἀδελφῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐκ 
πατρὸς ἢ ἐκ μητρὸς συμμιανθεὶς, εἰς 
οἶκον προσευχῆς μὴ ἐπιτρεπέσθω πα- 
ρεῖναι, ἕως ἂν ἀποστῇ τῆς παρανόμου 
καὶ ἀθεμίτου πράξεως. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ 
ἐλθεῖν εἰς συναίσθησιν τῆς φοβερᾶς 
ἁμαρτίας ἐκείνης, τριετίαν προσκλαιέ- 
Τω, τῇ ipa τῶν εὐκτηρίων. οἴκων 
παρεστηκὼς, καὶ δεόμενος τοῦ λαοῦ 


εἰσιόντος ἐπὶ τὴν προσευχὴν, ὥστε 
ἕκαστον μετὰ συμπαθείας ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ 
ἐκτενεῖς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον 
τὰς δεήσεις. Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἄλλην 
τριετίαν εἰς ἀκρόασιν μόνην παρα- 
δεχθήτω, καὶ ἀκούων τῶν Γραφῶν [al. 
τῆς Γραφῆς καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐκ- 
βαλλέσθω, καὶ μὴ καταξιούσθω προσ- 
ευχῆς. Ἔπειτα εἴπερ μετὰ δακρύων 
ἐξεζήτησεν. αὐτὴν, καὶ προσέπεσε τῷ 
Κυρίῳ μετὰ συντριμμοῦ καρδίας καὶ 
ταπεινώσεως ἰσχυρᾶς, διδόσθω αὐτῷ 
ὑπόπτωσις ἐν ἄλλοις τρισὶν ἔτεσι" 
καὶ οὕτως, ἐπειδὰν τοὺς καρποὺς τῆς 
μετανοίας ἀξίους ἐπιδείξηται, τῷ δε- 
κάτῳ ἔτει εἰς τὴν τῶν πιστῶν εὐχὴν 
δεχϑήτω, “χωρὶς προσφορᾶς" καὶ δύο 
ἔτη συστὰς εἰς τὴν εὐχὴν τοῖς πιστοῖς, 
οὕτω λοιπὸν καταξιούσθω τῆς τοῦ 
ἀγαθοῦ κοινωνίας. 

40 0. 76. (Oper. Basil. ibid. [ (cc. 
ibid. d.) ‘O αὐτὸς τύπος καὶ περὶ τῶν 
τὰς νύμφας ἑαυτῶν λαμβανόντων. 

41 C. 78. [ Oper. Basil. ibid.] (CC. 
ibid. e.) ὋὉ δὲ αὐτὸς τύπος κρατείτω 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς δύο ἀδελφὰς λαμβα- 
νόντων εἰς συνοικέσιον, εἰ καὶ κατὰ 


διαφόρους χρόνους. 


adultery, Sc. 413 


marry his own daughter, or a son his own mother or sister, 
as is observed by Origen #2. Minucius #3 says the same of the 
Egyptians and Athenians; and Theodoret+!, speaking particu- 
larly of the Persians in his own time, says it was then a mark 
of honour and religion for their princes to marry their own 
mothers, or sisters, or daughters. And Gothofred 45. gives 
many instances among the Romans of men marrying their 
sister’s daughters, and their brother’s daughters, the latter of 
which was never forbidden by any of their laws, though the 
former had sometimes a restraint laid upon it. But Constan- 
tius made it a capital‘® crime for any one to marry his brother’s 
or sister’s daughter, which was abominable. He equally con- 
demned 47 the marrying of two sisters, or a brother's wife, 
(though the Jewish law allowed the latter in a certain case,) 


42 Cont. Cels. 1. 5. p. 248. (t. 1. 
P- 597 c.) Οἱ Περσῶν [νόμοι], μὴ 
κωλύοντες γαμεῖσθαι τοῖς παισὶ τὰς 
μητέρας, μηδὲ ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων τὰς 
ἑαυτῶν a Conf. Augustin. 
de Civitat. Dei, 1. 15. c. 16. (t. 7. 
Ρ. 397-) De Jure Conjugiorum, τα. 
[The reference is not distinct: see 
ibid. n. 2. (p.398c.) Quod.. etiam 
inter impios deorum multorum fal- 
sorumque cultores sic observari cer- 
nimus, ut etiamsi perversis legibus 
permittantur fraterna conjugia, &c. 
Ep. | 

48 Octav. p. 92. (c. 31. Ρ. 155-) 
Jus est apud Persas misceri cum 
matribus : A2gyptiis et Athenis cum 
sororibus legitima connubia. 

44 Quest. in Lev. 18, 8. (t. 1. part. 
I. p. 205.) Ὅτι δὲ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα 
τολμᾶται, μαρτυροῦσι καὶ Πέρσαι μέ- 
χρι τοῦ παρόντος, οὐ μόνον ἀδελφαῖς, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ μητράσι καὶ θυγατράσι νόμῳ 
γάμου μιγνύμενοι. 

45 In Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 12. de 
Incestis Nuptiis, leg. 1., ex Tacit. 
Annal. 1. 12., Sueton. Vit. Claudii, 
c. 26., et Vit. Domitian. c. 22. (t. i 
p- 294.) Cum et antiquissimo jure, 
non minus fratris, quam sororis, fi- 
liam uxorem ducere nefas esset, 
postea tamen discrimen inductum 
fuit, inter fratris filiam et sororis 
filiam, videlicet ut illam patruo du- 
cere liceret, hanc avunculo non lice- 
ret. Quod quidem Claudius im- 


perator, Agrippine amore correptus, 
primus impetravit, quod scilicet jus- 
te inter patres fratrumque filias 
nuptiz in posterum SC. statueren- 
tur, que ad id tempus incest ha- 
bebantur, ut Tacitus, lib. 12. An- 
nalium, et Suetonius in Vita Claudii, 
c. 26., diserte testantur. Hoc ex- 
emplo postea Domitiano fratris Titi 
filia in matrimonium oblata fuit, ut 
idem Suetonius in ejus Vita scribit, 
c. 22. Verum paullo post hoc dis- 
crimen, jure veteri restituto, subla- 
tum fuit; Nerva quippe mox sanxit, 

μὴ ἀδελφιδὴν γαμεῖν, quod Xiphili- 
nus ex Dione notat: ἀδελφιδὴν, id 
est, non tantum sororis, sed et fra- 
tris, filiam ne ducere jus esset. 

46 Cod. Theod. ibid. (p. 294.) Si 
quis filiam fratris, sororisve, facien- 
dum crediderit abominanter uxo- 
rem, aut in ejus amplexum, non ut 
patruus aut avunculus, convolaverit, 
capitalis sententize poena teneatur. 

47 Tbid. tit. 12. de Incestis Nup- 
tiis, leg. 2. (p. 296.) Etsi licitum 
veteres crediderunt, nuptiis fratris 
solutis, ducere fratrum uxorem ; li- 
citum etiam post mortem mulieris 
vel divortium, contrahere cum ejus- 
dem sorore conjugium : abstineant 
hujusmodi nuptiis universi, nec esti- 
ment posse legitimos liberos ex hoc 
consortio procreari: nam spurios 
esse convenit, qui nascentur. 


414 The great crimes, XVI. xt 


under the penalty of having their children illegitimate, and 
accounted spurious. And Theodosius Junior thought it proper 
to repeat the same law 43, though Honorius himself had made 
a stretch upon it, by marrying two sisters, the daughters of 
Stilicho, successively the one after the other. The ecclesiastical 
law dissolved all such marriages as incestuous, and obliged the 
parties to do penance for their lewdness. The Council of Eli- 
beris #9 requires five years’ penance, unless some intervening 
danger of death require the time to be shortened. The Council 
of Neocsarea*° orders the woman that is married to two 
brothers to remain excommunicate to the day of her death, 
and then only to be reconciled by receiving the sacrament in 
extremity, upon condition that if she recovers she shall dissolve 
the marriage, and submit to a course of solemn repentance. 
St. Basil argues at large for the nullity and dissolution of all 
such marriages in an Epistle to Diodorus Tarsensis 51, under 
whose name there went a feigned treatise in defence of them. 
And among the Apostolical Canons there is one *? that orders, 
‘that whoever marries two sisters, or his brother’s daughter, 
shall never be admitted among the clergy.’ 


Whether 4, But they are not so clear and unanimous in the questi 
Ἐπ σα about the marriage of cousin-germans. ‘Till the time of St. 
cousin-ger- Ambrose and Theodosius there was no law against it, but 
reckoned Lheodosius by an express law absolutely forbad it. This law 


incest. is not exstant now in either of the Codes, but there is reference 
made to it by many ancient writers. Honorius in one of his 


laws®? makes mention of it, confirming the prohibition, though 


48 Thid. leg. 4. (p. 300.) Tanquam 
incestum commiserit, habeatur, qui 
post prioris conjugis amissionem, 
sororem ejus in matrimonium pro- 
prium crediderit sortiendam. Pati 
ac simili ratione etiam, si qua post 
interitum mariti in germani ejus 
nuptias crediderit aspirandum. Illo 
sine dubio insecuturo, quod ex hoc 
contubernio nec filii legitimi habe- 
buntur, nec in sacris patris erunt, 
nec paternam ut sui suscipient he- 
reditatem. 

49 Ὁ. 61. (t. 1. p. 977 a.) Si quis 
post obitum uxoris suze, sororem 
ejus duxerit, . 
communione placuit abstineri, nisi 


. quinquennium a. 


forte dari pacem velocius necessitas 
coegerit infirmitatis. 

50 C. 2. (ibid. p. 1481 a.) Γυνὴ ἐὰν 
γήμηται δύο ἀδελφοῖς, ἐξωθείσθω μέ- 
χρι θανάτου" πλὴν ἐν θανάτῳ διὰ τὴν 
φιλανθρωπίαν, εἰποῦσα. ὡς ὑγιάνασα 
λύσει τὸν γάμον, ἕξει τὴν μετάνοϊαν. 

51 Ep. 197. [al. 160. | (CC. t. 2. 

p. 1760 d.) ’Eay tis ... ἐκπέσῃ πρὸς 
δυοῖν ἀδελφῶν ἄθεσμον κοινωνίαν, 
μήτε γάμον ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦτο, κ.τ.λ. 

ὅ2 C. 19. [8]. 18.1 (Cotel. v. 1. 
Ρ. 439. ) Ὁ δύο ἀδελφὰς ἀγαγόμενος, 
ἢ ἀδελφιδὴν, οὐ δύναται εἶναι κλη- 

ικός 

58 Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. το. Si 
nuptiz ex rescripto petantur, leg. 1. 


15, cousin-germans. 


adultery, &e. 415 


under a different penalty. For whereas Theodosius made the 
penalty to be confiscation and burning, he moderated the 
punishment into confiscation of the parties’ goods, and the 
illegitimation of their children. And Arcadius by another 
law 5. took off confiscation also, but made all such still guilty 
of incestuous marriage, and rendered them intestate, and their 
children illegitimate, and incapable of succeeding to any in- 
heritance, as being only a spurious offspring. Gothofred>> has 
observed likewise, that there is mention made of this law of 
Theodosius in the writings of Libanius 56, who speaks of it as 
a new law made by him to forbid the marriage of ἀνεψιοὶ, that 
The like is said by St. Ambrose 57, who 
takes notice of the severe punishment which the emperor laid 
upon all those that married in contradiction to the law. And it is 
thought that St. Ambrose was the emperor's adviser in the case, 
being of opinion himself that such marriages were incestuous 
and prohibited in Scripture. St. Austin was of a very different 
judgment from St. Ambrose, yet he mentions the emperor's 

law 58, and advises men to refrain from such marriages, be- 


(t. 1. p. 287.) Exceptis his, quos 
consobrinorum, hoc est quarti gra- 
dus conjunctionem, lex triumphalis 
memorize patris nostri exemplo in- 
oo supplicare non vetavit, 

eS 

54 Tbid. tit. 12. de Incestis Nup- 
tis, leg. 3. (p. 297.) Manente circa 
eos sententia, qui post factam du- 
dum legem quoquo modo absoluti 
sunt aut puniti, si quis incestis 
posthac consobrinz suz, vel soro- 
ris aut fratris filiz, uxorisve ...sese 
nuptiis funestarit, designato quidem 
lege supplicio, hoc est, ignium et 
proscriptionis, careat, proprias etiam 
quamdiu vixerit teneat facultates : 
sed neque uxorem neque filios ex 
ea editos habere credatur, ut nihil 
prorsus preedictis, ne per interposi- 
tam quidem personam, vel donet 
superstes, vel mortuus derelinquat. 

5 In Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 10. 
leg. 1. (ibid. p. 288. col. dextr.) 
Antiquissimus igitur et coztaneus 
quidem scriptor occurrit Libanius, 
orator Antiochenus, Oratione, quam 
nos primi edidimus, ὑπὲρ τῶν yewp- 
γῶν περὶ τῶν ἀγγαρειῶν, quamque is 


ad ipsummet Theodosium scripsit. 
Ibi post exempla anterioris cujus- 
dam imperatoris, immo et post al- 
terum ipsiusmet Theodosii exem- 
plum, quibus illi veteris consuetu- 
dinis morisque recepti ratione in- 
super habita, leges nihilominus salu- 
tares tulere, subjicit,—My δὲ ἔστω- 
σαν ἀνεψιῶν γάμοι γέγραφας, ἐν 
ἐξουσίᾳ πολλῇ τοῦ πράγματος, καὶ 
τῶν φαινομένων δικαίων οὐκ ἦν ὁ τοῦ 
ἔργου χρόνος δυνατώτερος. 

56 Oratio pro Agricolis de Anga- 
1115. See the preceding note. 

57 Ep. 66. [al. 6ο.7 ad Paternum. 
((. 2. p. 101g ἃ. n. 8.) Nam Theodo- 
sius imperator etiam patrueles fra- 
tres et consobrinos vetuit inter se 
conjugii convenire nomine, et seve- 
rissimam pcenam statuit si quis te- 
merare ausus esset fratrum pia pig- 
nora, &c. 

58 De Civitat. Dei, 1, 1g. c. 16. 
(t. 7. p. 302 a.) Experti sumus in 
connubiis consobrinorum etiam nos- 
tris temporibus, propter gradum pro- 
pinguitatis fraterno gradui proxi- 
mum, quam raro per mores fiebat, 
quod fieri per leges licebat, quia id 


416 XVI. xi 


The great crimes, 


cause ‘ though neither the divine law, nor any human law 
before that of Theodosius, had prohibited them, yet most men 
were scrupulous about them, and such marriages were very 
rarely made, because men thought they bordered very near 
upon unlawful; whilst the marrying a cousin-german was 
almost deemed the same thing as marrying a sister, and the 
propinquity of blood gave men a sort of natural aversion to 
such engagements with their near kindred.’ It appears from 
this, that there was no human law before that of Theodosius 
to prohibit this sort of marriages; and in St. Austin’s opinion 
there was nothing to hinder them in the law of God. Athana- 
515 59 was of the same judgment; for he says expressly, ‘ that 
by the rule of God’s commands the conjunction of cousin- 
germans, or brother’s and sister’s children in matrimony, was 
lawful marriage.’ And afterwards Arcadius® revoked all former 
laws that he himself or others had made in derogation of such 
marriages, declaring them ‘legal, and that no action or false 
accusation should lie against them, but that if cousin-germans 
married together, whether they were the children of two 
brothers, or two sisters, or a sister and a brother, their matri- 
mony should be lawful, and their children legitimate.’ 
Justinian made this the standing law of the empire, not only 
by inserting it into his Code, but by declaring the same thing 
in his Institutions ®!: where Contius © rightly observes, that 


nec divina prohibuit, et nondum nium inter consobrinos habeatur 


prohibuerat lex humana: verunta- 
men factum etiam licitum propter 
vicinitatem horrebatur illiciti, et quod 
fiebat cum consobrina, pene cum so- 
rore fieri videbatur, &c. 

59 Synops. Scriptur. Lib. Numer. 
ἘΠ ΣΡ. 70.~ (i. 2. op: Τοῦ b.) [ate 
λαμβάνουσι κλῆρον ai θυγατέρες Σαλ- 
παὰδ, τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς ἑαυτῶν" καὶ ἐκ 
τῆς προφάσεως αὐτῶν γίνεται προσ- 
ταγμα Κυρίου καὶ νόμος, νόμιμον 
εἶναι γάμον τὴν πρὸς ἀνεψιοὺς συζυ- 
αν. 

60 Cod. Justin. 1. 5. tit. 4. de 
Nuptiis, leg. 19. (t. 4. p. 1135.) 
Celebrandis inter consobrinos ma- 
trimoniis licentia legis hujus salu- 
britate indulta est; ut, revocati pri- 
sci juris auctoritate, restinctisque 
calumniarum fomentis, matrimo- 


legitimum, sive ex duodus fratri- 
bus, sive ex duabus sororibus, sive 
ex fratre et sorore nati sunt, &c. 

61 Lib. τ. tit. ro. de Nuptiis, n. 4. 
(t. 5. Ρ. 50.) Duorum autem fra- 
trum, vel sororum liberi, vel fratris 
et sororis, conjungi possunt. 

62 [In loc. (ibid. ad calc. n. a.) 
Quidam codices, conjungi non pos- 
sunt ; at queita Theophilus scribit et 
Gaius, 1. 1. inst., quod pugnat tamen 
cum 1. Celebrandis, c. de Nupt. 
leg. 2., 6. de Inst. et sub. leg. 3. ὅτε. 
Malim igitur conjungi possunt. A- 
scripta est negatio Gaio ex Got- 
thorum jure, quo, ut Cassius indicat, 
Var. ἰ. 7., recreata fuit Theodosiani 
constitutio, ut ne consobrini matri- 
monio jungantur sine venia princi- 
pis, &c. Ep.] 


adultery, Sc. 417 
though some copies and some ancient writers, as Theophilus 
and others, read it negatively, conjungi non possunt: yet the 
other is certainly the true reading, both because it is agreeable 
to the law of Arcadius in the Code, and because Gregory the 
Great ® so alleges it in his answer to Austin the monk upon 
this question, saying, ‘The civil law of the Roman empire 
allows the marriage of cousin-germans, but the sacred law 
forbids it.’ And this was now the known difference between 
the civil and ecclesiastical law. For though Zepper © alleges 
the Council of Epone and the second of Tours, as allowing 
such marriages, yet he plainly mistakes in both. For the 
Council of Epone expressly styles them incest and adultery °°, 


ranking them with marriages contracted with a sister, or the 


relict of a brother, or a father’s wife. And the Council of 
Tours © is as plain in the matter, quoting the foresaid canon 
of Epone, and another of the Council of Arvern or Clermont 
against them. Gregory II. made a like decree in a Council at 
Rome 57, anno 721, and in the following ages the prohibition 
extended 65 to the sixth or seventh generation. 

The short of the whole matter is this: before the time of 
Theodosius there was no law, ecclesiastical or civil, to prohibit 
the marriage of cousin-germans: under the reign of Theodo- 
sius they were forbidden, but allowed again in the next reign, 
and under Justinian, who fixed the allowance in the body of 
his laws. But still the canons continued the prohibition, and 
extended it to a greater degree. But as this was not the 


63 L.12. Ep. 31. (CC. t.5. p.1569 
6.) et ap. Bedam, 1. 1. c. 27. (p. 63. 
45.) Queedam terrena lex in Romana 
republica permittit, ut sive frater et 
soror, [4]. sive fratris sive sororis, | 
seu duorum fratrum germanorum, 
vel duarum sororum filius et filia 
misceantur. Sed sacra lex prohi- 
bet, &c. 

64 Legum Mosaicarum Forensium 
Explanat. 1. 4. c. 19. (p. 506.) Con- 
sentiunt his vetusta ecclesiz Conci- 
lia. In Epaunensi enim Concilio, 
circa annum Christi 497 habito, 
refertur, quod ultra consobrinos non 
progrediatur edictum. Quod idem 
in Turonico secundo statuitur Con- 
cilio. 

BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


65 C. 30. (t. 4. Ρ. 1579 6.) In- 
cestis junctionibus nihil prorsus ve- 
nize reservamus, nisi cum adulte- 
rium separatione sanaverint; .... 5] 
quis novercam duxerit, si quis con- 
sobrine se societ. 

66 C. Turon. 2. c.2. (t.5. p.8724.) 
Quisquis aut sororem, aut filiam [al. 
sororis aut fratris filiam] aut certe 
gradu consobrinam, aut fratris uxo- 
rem, sceleratis sibi nuptiis junxerit, 
huic poene subjaceat, &c. 

67 C. 8. (t. 6. p. 1457 a.) Si quis 
consobrinam duxerit in conjugium, 
anathema sit. 

68 Vid. Gratian, caus. 15. quest. 
5. (t. τ. p. 1845. 50.) Series con- 
sanguinitatis, &c. 

Ee 


418 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


original constitution, nor the practice of the Church for some 
ages, to bring such marriages under penitential discipline, as 
incestuous or simply unlawful; so I have not here laid this 
load upon them, but given the fair account of men’s sentiments 
on both sides, and the different practices both of Church and 
State in several ages; acting the part of an historian, but not 
inducing the reader to condemn what was once allowed by the 
general vote of the Catholic Church, however differently repre- 
sented in later ages. 


Of poly- 5. The next question may be about polygamy, which denotes 
d ἐ ms 3 υ . Ἁ 

vo. either having many wives at once, or many successively one 

binage. after another. 


As to the former, Socrates ® tells a very strange story of the 
emperor Valentinian, that by the advice of his wife Severa he 
married a second wife whilst she was living; and upon that 
made a law to grant liberty to all that would to have two wives 
at the same tine. The author of the book, called Polygamia 
Triumphatriz7°, makes a great stir with this pretended law in 
favour of polygamy: which in all probability is a mere fabu- 
lous story, which Socrates too hastily took up from the relation 
of some crafty impostor. For there is no footstep of any such 
law in either of the Codes, but much to the contrary. For even 
the Heathen law forbad it to the old Romans7!, as is evident 
from an edict of Diocletian in the Justinian Code, where he 


70 [ John Lyser, under the assumed 


β0 da, ᾿ς! 51. ἵν. 2. ΡΒ. 254. 25.) 
3 name of Theophilus Alethius: Lond. 


‘Qs οὖν ἴδεν αὐτὴν λουομένην τὴν 


᾿Ιουστίναν ἡ Σευήρα, ἠράσθη τοῦ κάλ- 
λους τῆς παρθένου" καὶ πρὸς τὸν βα- 
σιλέα διεξήει περὶ αὐτῆς, ὡς οὕτως 
εἴη θαυμαστὸν ἔχουσα κάλλος ἡ παρ- 
θένος, ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιούστου θυγάτηρ, ὡς καὶ 
αὐτὴν, καίτοι γυναῖκα οὖσαν, ἐρασθῆ- 
ναι τῆς εὐφορμίας αὐτῆς. “O δὲ βασι- 
λεὺς ταμιευσάμενος τὸν τῆς γυναικὸς 
λόγον, ἀγαγέσθαι τὴν Ἰουστίναν ἐβου- 
λεύσατο, μὴ ἐκβαλὼν τὴν Σευήραν, 
ἀφ᾽ js αὐτῷ ΤῬρατιανὸς ἐγεγόνει, ὃν 
μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν ἀνηγορεύκει βασι- 
λέα. Νόμον οὖν ὑπαγορεύσας δημοσίᾳ 
προτίθησι κατὰ πόλεις, ὥστε ἐξεῖναι 
τῷ βουλομένῳ δύο νομίμους ἔχειν γυ- 
vuikas’ καὶ ὁ μὲν νόμος προέκειτο" ὁ 
δὲ ἄγεται τὴν ᾿Ιουστίναν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς αὐτῷ 
γίνεται Οὐαλεντινιανός τε ὁ νέος, καὶ 
θυγατέρες τρεῖς, ᾿Ιούστα, Τράτα, 
Γάλλα. 


Scanor. 1682. 41ο.-- See thes. 13. 
(p. 83.) Primi vero imperatoris ves- 
tiglis institit subsequente tempore 
Valentinianus, qui legem primevam 
Julii, quasi obliteratam, in lucem 
produxit, et in omnibus civitatibus 
publicari jussit, quod liceat δύο vo- 
μίμους ἔχειν γυναῖκας, et proprio ex- 
emplo Severam et Justinam ducendo 
obsignavit.—See more ibid. note 5. 
(p. 89.) Fictor victoriz fictee totam 
historiam polygamicam Valentinia- 
ni in dubium vocare conatur, &c. 
Ep. ] 

71 Cod. Justin. 1. 5. tit. 5. de In- 
cestis Nuptiis, leg. 2. (t. 4. p. 1145.) 
Neminem, qui sub ditione sit Ro- 
mani nominis, binas uxores habere 
posse vulgo patet, ἕο. 


adultery, §'c. 419 


says, ‘no Roman was allowed to have two wives at once, but 
was liable to be punished before a competent judge.’ And the 
Christian law forbad the Jews also to have two wives at once7? 
according to the allowance of their own law. Sallust7> says 
the Romans were used to deride polygamy in the barbarians: 
and though Julius Cesar74 attempted to have a law passed in 
favour of it, he could not effect it. And Plutarch75 remarks, 
that Mark Antony was the first that had two wives among the 
Romans. But that which is most decisive is, that neither Zosi- 
mus, nor Ammianus Marcellinus, the Heathen historians, object 
any such thing to Valentinian; which they would not have 
failed to have done, had he taken or granted any such liberty 
contrary to the laws of the Romans before him; but, on the 
other hand, Ammianus Marcellinus7® says expressly of him, 
‘that he was remarkable for his chastity both at home and 
abroad, and had no contagion of obscenity upon his conscience; 
by which means he was able to bridle the petulancy of the im- 
perial court, and keep it in good order.’ And Zosimus77 rather 
intimates, that he did not marry his second wife Justina, till 
Severa, his first, was dead. Whence Baronius7$ and Valesius79 


72 Thid. 1, 1. tit. 9. de Judzis, leg. 
7. (t. 4. p. 198.) Nemo Judzorum 
morem suum in conjunctionibus 
retineat, nec juxta legem suam nup- 
tias sortiatur, nec in diversa sub 
uno tempore conjugia conveniat. 

73 De Bell. Jugurth. c. 80. (Lugd. 
Bat. 1665. p. 328.) Etiam antea Ju- 
gurthe filia Boccho nupserat. Ve- 
rum ea necessitudo apud Numidas 
Maurosque levis ducitur, quod sin- 
guli pro opibus quisque quamplu- 
rimas uxores, denas alii, alii plures 
habent; sed reges eo amplius. Ita 
animus multitudine distrahitur ; 


nulla pro socia obtinet: pariter 
omnes viles sunt. 
74 Vid. Sueton. Vit. Jul. Ces. 


c. 52. (p. 33-) Helvius Cinna, trib. 
pleb., plerisque confessus est, ha- 
buisse se scriptam paratamque le- 
gem, quam Cesar ferre jussisset, 
cum ipse abesset, uti uxores, libero- 
rum querendorum causa, quas et 
quot vellet, ducere liceret. 

75 Vit. Anton. in fin. (Oper. t. 1. 
P- 957 ἃ. 9.) ᾿Αντώνιος δὲ πρῶτον 
μὲν ὁμοῦ δύο γυναῖκας ἠγάγετο, πρᾶ- 


os μηδενὶ “Papaiw τετολμημένον. 

oT, 30; ὁ: Ὁ: Ὁ: 402: Up. 508:} 
Omni pudicitiz cultu domi castus 
et foris, nullo conscientie contagio 
violatus obscene ; . . hancque’ob cau- 
sam tanquam retinaculis petulantiam 
aulz regalis frenarat, quod custodire 
facile potuit. 

77 Hist. 1. 4. (p. 262.) Tore δὴ 
νεὼς ἐπιβὰς ἐπὶ τὴν Θεσσαλονίκην 
ἀπῇρε" συναπέπλει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ 7 μή- 
™p ᾿Ιουστίνα, Μαγνεντίῳ μὲν, ὡς εἴ- 
ρηταί [rots πρότερον συνοικήσασα" 
μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου καθαίρεσιν, Οὐα- 
λεντινιανῷ τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ κάλλους 
ὑπερβολὴν συναφθεῖσα. 

78 An. 370. (t. 4. p. 274 a.) Con- 
vincitur ex pluribus, apertissimis 
mendaciis anilem vel ab eo concin- 
natam esse fabellam, vel potius ip- 
sum ab aliquo e trivio acceptum ut 
verum, conscripsisse commentum. 
Unde, queso, Socrati, Justinam 
fuisse virginem, cum eam Valenti- 
nianus accepit in conjugem, quam 
constat uxorem fuisse Magnentii 
tyranni? Testatur id quidem inter 
hujus temporis scriptores Zosimus ; 


Ee2 


420 The great crimes, XVI. xi 


rightly conclude, that this story in Socrates must needs be a 
mere groundless fiction, and that there never was any law to 
authorize polygamy in the Roman empire. 

As to the laws of the Church, St. Basil8° observes, that the 
Fathers said little or nothing of polygamy, as being a brutish 
vice, to which mankind had no very great propensity. But he 
determines it to be a greater sin than fornication, and conse- 
quently it ought to have a longer course of penance assigned 
it: for fornication was to have seven years’ punishment by St. 
Basil’s rules, and yet the term of penance for polygamy in this 
canon is only four years: which makes learned men suspect 
that this part of the canon is corrupted by the negligence of 
transcribers, and that St. Basil originally assigned a longer 
term of penance for this sin than appears from any copies now 
exstant, which only requires one year’s penance in the quality 
of mourners, and three years in the class of co-standers, with- 
out any mention of their being hearers or prostrators, which 


are usually specified in most other canons of this author. 


qui certe quo non pretio redemis- 
set, ut in Christianum imperatorem, 
proxime succedentem post Julia- 
num, quem in odium Christiane 
religionis adeo celebrat, potuisset 
tantum facinus exprobrare? Et 
quid dicemus de Ammiano xque 
Gentili, et in Christianos principes 
parum zquo, qui tamen nihil adeo 
celebrat in Valentiniano atque com- 
mendat ac castitatem? Sed ejus 
verba reddamus : Omni pudicitie 
cultu, §c. ...Appello nunc rectum 
eruditorum omnium sanumque ju- 
dictum: potuissentne hee de Chri- 
stiano principe a scriptoribus in 
Christianam religionem infensis adeo 
preedicari, si Valentinianus fuisset 
publica illa obscenitate pollutus, 
quam scimus a Romanarum rerum 
historicis in barbaris esse derisam, 
et in Romano imperatore id tentante 
magnopere improbatam ? — [ Vede- 
lius (de Prudent. Vet. Eccles. p.229.) 
is against Baronius, but Mele. Ziedler 
(de. Polygamia, p. 117.) defends Ba- 
ronius’s arguments. Vid. Fabric. 
Bibl. Antiq. c. 20. De Polygam. 
8.11. (p. 588.) Quod vero pontificii 
scriptores, &c., where he discourses 


In 


of Luther’s allowing Philip, Prince 
of Hesse, to have a second wife; 
and of Honorius III. dispensing with 
polygamy in the Earl of Gleichen; 
out of Secker, and Bale, and Tentzel. 
Ep. from MS. note by Auth. ] 

79 In Socrat. 1. 4. c. 31. (v. 2. p. 
254 Ὁ. n. 2.) Hujus legis Valentini- 
ani nulla usquam fit mentio. Sed 
nec Ammianus Marcellinus, qui res 
Valentiniani accurate commemora- 
vit, hujus legis meminit in suis li- 
bris. Certe hujusmodi lex nequa- 
quam convenire mihi videtur Va- 
lentiniano, principi serio et Christi- 
ano. Tota igitur hee narratio de 
Justine conjugio dubie fidei mihi 
videtur. 

80 C. 80. [Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert.] (CC. t.2. p. 1756 b.) 
Τὴν δὲ πολυγαμίαν οἱ πατέρες ἀπε- 
σιώπησαν, ὡς κτηνώδη, καὶ παντελῶς 
ἀλλοτρίαν τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων" 
ἡμῖν δὲ παρίσταται πλέον τι πορνείας 
εἶναι. τὸ ἁμάρτημα" διὸ εὔλογον τοὺς 
τοιούτους ὑποβάλλεσθαι τοῖς κανόσι᾽ 
δηλονότι ἐνιαυτὸν προσκλαύσαντες, 
καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ὑποπεσόντας, οὕτω δεκ- 
τοὺς εἶναι. 


§ 5, 6. 421 


the first Council of Toledo 51 there is also a rule which accounts 
it the same thing as polygamy for a man to have a wife and a 
concubine together: for such an one may not communicate. 
But if he have no wife, but only a concubine instead of a wife, 
he may not be repelled from the communion, provided he be 
content to be joined to one woman only, whether wife or con- 
cubine, as he pleases. The difficulty, which seems to be in the 
latter part of this canon, I have been ai some pains to explain 
in a former Book’2, where I show that in the sense of the ec- 
clesiastical law a concubine differs nothing from a wife; though 
the civil law made a greater distinction between them; calling 
her only a concubine, who was married against any of the rules 
which the laws of the State prescribed, and denying her the 
privileges, rights, and honours, which belonged to a legal wife : 
for she could claim no right from her husband’s estate, nor her 
children succeed to his inheritance: yet she was not reputed 
guilty of fornication, nor the husband accounted an adulterer 
in the eye of the Church, because they kept themselves faith- 
fully and entirely to each other by an exact performance of the 
mutual contract made between them. Which was the reason 
why the Church allowed such a man to communicate who was 
united to a concubine, in the foresaid sense, instead of a wife; 
but reckoned him guilty of polygamy who kept a concubine 
and a wife together. 

6. Another sort of polygamy was the marrying of a second Of marry- 
wife after the unlawful divorcement of a former. For this aes 
in effect was reputed the same as having two wives at once. divorce. 
There were some cases, in which a man might lawfully put 
away his wife, without any transgression against the rules of 
Church or State, or violation of any law, human or divine. 

The civil law allowed it in many cases. Constantine specifies 
three cases*?, in which a man was at liberty to put away his 


adultery, §e. 


81 C, 17. (t. 2. p. 1226 b.) Si quis 
habens uxorem fidelis [4]. fidelem} 
concubinam habeat, non communi- 
cet. Czterum is, qui non habet 
uxorem, et pro uxore concubinam 
habeat, a communione non repella- 
tur, tantum ut unius mulieris, aut 
[{uxoris aut] concubine, ut ei placu- 
erit, sit conjunctione contentus. 

& B11. ch. 5. 8.11. V. 4. p. 93 


83 Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 16. de Re- 
pudiis, leg. τ. (t.1. p. 310.) Placet, 
mulieri non licere propter suas pra- 
vas cupiditates marito repudium 
mittere exquisita causa velut ebri- 
oso, aut aleatori, aut mulierculario : 
nec vero maritis per quascunque oc- 
casiones uxores suas dimittere. Sed 
in repudio mittendo a feemina hee 
sola crimina inquiri, si homicidam, 


~ 


422 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


wife, or a woman her husband. A woman might not divorce 
herself from her husband at pleasure for any ordinary cause, 
as, because he was a drunkard, or a gamester, or given to wo- 
men; but only for these three crimes, if he was a murderer, 
or a poisoner, or a robber of graves; if otherwise, she was to 
forfeit all her title to his substance, and be sent into banish- 
ment. In like manner, the husband was not to put away his 
wife, but only for the three crimes of adultery, poisoning, and 
the practice of bawdry. If otherwise, the woman might claim 
her own portion, and the man was incapacitated to marry 
again, The following emperors allowed many other causes of 
lawful divorce 84: as, if an husband was an adulterer, or a mur- 
derer, or a poisoner, or guilty of treason against his prince, 
or a perjured person, or a plunderer of graves, or robber of 
churches, or an highwayman, or harbourer of such, a stealer 
of cattle, or a man-stealer, or one frequenting the company of 
lewd women, which extremely exasperates a chaste wife; if he 
attempted her life by poison, or the sword, or any the like 
means ; if he beat her as a slave, contrary to the rules of using 
freeborn women: in any of these cases she had liberty to use 
the necessary help of a divorce, making proof of the cause be- 
fore a competent judge. And the same liberty was allowed the 
man against his wife upon these and the like reasons. 

But the ecclesiastical laws were much stricter, and admitted 
of divorces only in case of adultery and malicious desertion. 
In the case of adultery, women as well as men were allowed to 


vel medicamentarium, vel sepulchro- susceptorem, vel abactorem, aut pla- 


rum dissolutorem maritum suum 
esse probaverit, &c. In masculis 
etiam, si repudium mittant, hee 
tria crimina inquiri conveniet, si 
mcecham, vel medicamentariam, vel 
conciliatricem repudiare voluerit, 
&e. 

84 Cod. Justin. |. 5. tit. 17. De 
Repudiis, leg. S. Theod. Jun. (t. 4. 
p- 1242.) Si qua igitur maritum 
suum adulterum, aut homicidam, 
aut veneficum, vel certe contra nos- 
trum imperium aliquid molientem, 
vel falsitatis crimine condemnatum 
invenerit: si sepulchrorum dissolu- 
torem, si sacris edibus aliquid sub- 
trahentem, si latronem, vel latronum 


giarium, vel ad contemptum sui 
domusve sue, ipsa inspiciente, cum 
impudicis mulieribus, quod maxime 
etiam castas exasperat, ceetum in- 
euntem, si suze vite veneno aut 
gladio aut alio simili modo insidi- 
antem, si se verberibus, que inge- 
nuis aliena sunt, afficientem proba- 
verit: tune repudii auxilio uti ne- 
cessario ei permittimus libertatem, 
et causas dissidii legibus compro- 
bare, &c.—See also Justin. Novel. 
22. c. 8. (t. 5..p. 161.) Novel. 114. 
c. 8. (ibid. p. 506.) et Cod. 1. 5. 
tit. 17. de Repudiis, Jeg. ro. et 11. 
(t. 4. pp. 1245, 1246.) 


adultery, Se. 423 


divorce themselves from the offending party, as appears from 
the case related by Justin Martyr 55, and out of him by Euse- 
bius 56, and several places of St. Austins’. And some canons§® 
oblige the clergy to dismiss their adulterous wives, under pain 
of ecclesiastical censure; whilst St. Austin’? pleads with the 
laity, rather to be reconciled to an adulterous wife upon her 
repentance, than dismiss her entirely, because of many great 
inconveniencies that might attend it. One of which was, that 
he thought the Scripture forbad both man and woman to 
marry again, even after a lawful divorce, till one of the parties 
was dead. But he does not so dogmatically assert this, as to 
make marrying after such a lawful divorce to be a crime worthy 
of excommunication. For in another Book, where he treats 
of the qualifications of baptism, he says, ‘A man, who puts 
away his wife for adultery and marries another, is not to be 
ranked with those who put away their wives without cause 


8 Apol. 1. (p. 41 6.) Γυνή τις 
συνεβίου ἀνδρὶ “ἀκολασταίνοντι, ἀκο- 
λασταίνουσα καὶ αὐτὴ πρότερον. ᾿Επεὶ 
δὲ τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διδάγματα ἔ ἔγνω 
αὕτη, ἐσωφρονίσθη, καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ὁ ὁ- 
μοίως σωφρονεῖν πείθειν ἐ ἐπειρᾶτο, δι- 
δάγματα ἀναφέρουσα, τήν τε μέλλου- 
σαν τοῖς οὐ σωφρόνως καὶ μετὰ λόγου 
ὀρθοῦ βιοῦσιν ἔσεσθαι ἐν αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ 
κόλασιν ἀπαγγέλλουσα. ‘O δὲ, ταῖς 
αὐταῖς ἀσελγείαις ἐ ἐπιμένων, ἀλλοτρίαν 
διὰ τῶν πράξεων “ἐποιεῖτο τὴν γαμε- 
τήν" ἀσεβὲς γὰρ ἡγουμένη τὸ λοιπὸν 
ἡ γυνὴ συγκατακλίνεσθαι ἀνδρὶ παρὰ 
τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον. καὶ παρὰ τὸ 
δίκαιον πόρους ἡδονῆς ἐκ παντὸς πει- 
ρωμένῳ ποιεῖσθαι, τῆς συζυγίας χωρι- 
σθῆναι. ἐβουλήθη. Kal, ἐπεὶ ἐξεδυσω- 
πεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῆς, ἔτι προσμένειν 
συμβουλευόντων, ὡς εἰς ἐλπίδας με- 
ταβολῆς ἥξοντος ποτὲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, βια- 
ζομένη ἑαυτὴν ἐπέμενεν. ᾿Επειδὴ δὲ 
ὁ ταύτης ἀνὴρ, εἰς τὴν ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν 
πορευθεὶς, χαλεπώτερα πράττειν ἀπηγ- 
γέλθη, ὅπως μὴ κοινωνὸς τῶν ἀδικη- 
μάτων καὶ ἀσεβημάτων γένηται μέ- 
νουσα ἐν τῇ συζυγίᾳ, καὶ ὁμοδίαιτος 
καὶ ὁμόκοιτος γενομένη, τὸ λεγόμενον 
μην ὑμῖν ῥεπούδιον δοῦσα, ἐχωρίσθη. 

86 L. 4. c. 17. (p 176. 14.) Turn 
tis συνεβίου ἀνδρὶ ἀκολασταίνοντι, 
K.T,A. 


87 De Adulteriis Conjugiis, 1.2. cc. 


6, seqq. (t. 6. p. 407 a, b.) Quod au- 
tem tibi durum videtur, &e.—De Bo- 
no Conjugali, c.7. (ibid. p. 323 g.) 
Facit enim de hac re sancta Scriptura 
dificilem nodum, &c. 

88 C. Neoces. c. 8. 
S. 2. p. 410. Nn. 30. 

89 De Adulterinis Conjugiis, 1. 2. 
per totum. (t.6. pp. 403 .... 418.) 

90 De Fid. et Oper. c..19. (t. 6. p. 
185 e.) Quisquis etiam uxorem in 
adulterio deprehensam dimiserit, et 
aliam duxerit, non videtur zequan- 
dus eis, qui excepta causa adulterii 
dimittunt et ducunt. Et in ipsis di- 
vinis sententiis ita obscurum est, u- 
trum et iste cui quidem sine dubio 
adulteram licet dimittere, adulter ta- 
men habeatur si dlteram duxerit, ut 
quantum existimo venialiter ibi quis- 
que fallatur. Quamobrem que ma- 
nifesta sunt impudicitiz crimina, 
omnimodo a baptismo prohibenda 
sunt, nisi mutatione voluntatis et 
peenitentia corrigantur: que autem 
dubia, omnimodo conandum est ne 
fiant tales conjunctiones. Quid e- 
nim opus est in tantum discrimen 
ambiguitatis caput immittere? Si 
autem factz fuerint, nescio utrum ii, 
qui fecerint, similiter ad baptismum 
non debere videantur admitti. 


See before, 


424 XVI. xi. 


The great crimes, 


and marry again. For the question is so obscurely resolved in 
Scripture, Whether he, who putting away his wife for adultery 
marries again, be upon that score an adulterer? that a man 
may be supposed to err venially in the matter. Therefore those 
crimes of uncleanness, which are manifestly so, ought to debar 
aman from baptism, unless he change his mind, and correct 
his crimes by repentance: but for those which are dubious, all 
that is to be done, is to endeavour to persuade men not to en- 
gage in such marriages. For what need is there for men to run 
their heads into such dangerous ambiguities? But if they are 
already done, I am not sure that they who do them ought 
therefore to be denied baptism.’ By this it appears, that 
though St. Austin in his own opinion was persuaded, that mar- 
rying after a lawful divorce was forbidden in Scripture; yet it 
was not so clearly forbidden, as to render a man incapable of 
baptism, nor consequently of the communion: these being of 
the same account in Christianity, and a man that is imcapable 
of the one is incapable of the other. The first Council of Arles 
seems to have acted upon the same sentiments. The fathers 
there?! declare it unlawful for men, who put away their wives 
for adultery, to marry others; but they do not order that the 
great censure of excommunication shall be inflicted on them, 
but only that they shall be dealt with and advised not to 
marry a second wife, while the other, who was divorced for 
adultery, was living. 

The Author under the name of St. Ambrose % makes a dif- 
ference between the man and the woman: he says, ‘the man 
was allowed to marry a second wife after he put away a first 
for fornication, but the Apostle did not allow the same privilege 
to the woman.’ In which opinion he seems to be singular: for 
Epiphanius%, speaking of the same matter, says, ‘that as the 


91 C. to. (t. 1. p. 1428 b.) De his, 
qui conjuges suas in adulterio de- 
prehendunt, et iidem sunt adolescen- 
tes fideles, et prohibentur nubere; 
placuit, ut, in quantum potest (al. 
possit], consilium eis detur, ne vi- 
ventibus uxoribus suis, licet adulte- 
ris, alias accipiant. 

94 Int Cor, 9, the tabs pi 202: (» 
2. append. p,. 133 6.) Noa enim per- 
mittitur mulieri ut nubat, si virum 


suum causa fornieationis dimiserit. 
.. Viro licet ducere uxorem, si ux- 
orem dimiserit peccantem. 

%3 Heer. 59. Cathar. 8. Novatian. 
n. 4. (t. 1. p. 496 ἃ. & 497 a.) "EE- 
εστι δὲ τῷ λαῷ be ἀσθένειαν διαβασ- 
τάζεσθαι,, καὶ μὴ δυνηθέντας ἐπὶ τῇ 
πρώτῃ γαμετῇ στῆναι, δευτέρᾳ μετὰ 
θάνατον. τῆς πρώτης συναφθῆναι" καὶ 
ὁ μὲν μίαν ἐσχηκὼς, ἐν ἐπαίνῳ μείζονι 
καὶ τιμῇ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἐκκλησιαζομένοις 


§ 6. 


adultery, §:c. 425 


Scripture allows men to marry a second wife after the death of 
the first; so, if a separation is made upon the account of forni- 
cation, or adultery, or any such cause, it does not condemn 
either the man that marries a second wife, or the woman that 
marries a second husband, nor deny them the privilege of 
church-communion or eternal life, but bears with them for 
their infirmity.’ And Origen™, though he himself was against 
the thing, plainly declares, that there were some bishops in his 
time, who allowed women as well as men to marry after such 
divorces, whilst the separate party was still living: which he 
reckons indeed to be against those rules of the Apostle, [Rom. 
7,2 and 3.] ‘“ A woman is bound as long as her husband liveth ;” 
and “ She shall be called an adulteress, if, as long as her hus- 
band liveth, she be married to another man.” Yet he thinks 
they might have reasons for permitting it; because perhaps 
they had regard to the infirmity of such as could not contain, 
and only permitted an evil against the original rule to avoid a 
greater sin. Yet some Councils forbade such marriages under 
the penalty of excommunication to those that were of the num- 
ber of the faithful, only making some allowance to those that 
were mere catechumens. To this purpose there are two canons 


in the Council of Eliberis®®, and one in the Council of Milevis%, 


ἐνυπάρχει᾽ ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνηθεὶς τῇ μιᾷ 
ἀρκεσθῆναι τελευτησάσῃ *, file ἕνεκέν 
τινος προφάσεως, πορνείας, ἢ μοιχείας, 
ἣ κακῆς αἰτίας χωρισμοῦ γενομένου, 
συναφθέντα δευτέρᾳ γυναικὶ, ἢ γυνὴ 
[μὴ δυνηθεῖσα τῷ ἐνὶ τελευτήσαντι 
ἀρκεσθῆναι, συναφθεῖσαν] δευτέρῳ 
ἀνδρὶ, οὐκ αἰτιᾶται ὁ θεῖος λόγος, οὐδὲ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἀπο- 
κηρύττει, ἀλλὰ διαβαστάζει διὰ τὸ 
ἀσθενές. 

94 Tractat. 7. in Matth. t. 2. p.67. 
(juxt. Vet. Interpret. vid. Ed. Ascen- 
sian. t. 3. fol. 18. ad calc. col. si- 
nistr.) Scio enim quosdam, qui pre- 
sunt ecclesiis, extra Scripturam per- 
misisse aliquam nubere, viro priori 
vivente: et contra Scripturam qui- 
dem fecerunt dicentem, Mulier l- 
gata est quanto tempore vivit vir e- 
jus. Item, Vivente viro, adultera 
vocabitur, si facta fuerit alteri viro. 


* (Suspecta mihi loci hujus integritas est. 
most obscure and will scarcely construe as it stands: 
those I have placed between the brackets, would make it clearer. 


Non tamen omnino sine causa hoc 
permiserunt: forsitan enim propter 
hujusmodi infirmitatem incontinen- 
tium hominum, pejorum compara- 
tione, que mala sunt permiserunt, 
adversus ea que ab initio fuerant 
scripta. [Conf. Nov. Interpret. vid. 
Ed. Bened. Lib. 14.in Matth. ἢ. 23. (t. 

8. Ρ. 647 a.) Jam vero contra Scrip- 
ture legem, &c. Ep.] 

9 C.g. (t.1. Ρ. 971 ἃ.) Foemina 
fidelis. ane adulterum maritum re- 
liquerit fidelem, et alterum duxerit, 
[4]. ducit, leg? duceret], prohibeatur 
ne ducat. Si [autem “duxerit, non 
prius accipiat communionem, quam 
is, quem reliquit, [8]. nisi quem re- 
liquerit, de seculo exierit; nisi 
forte necessitas infirmitatis dare 
compulerit.—C. tro. (ibid. e.) Si ea, 
quam catechumenus reliquerit, [al. 
reliquit} duxerit maritum, potest ad 
Petav. in marg.—The place is 
perhaps some terms, like 


Ep.] 


426 XVI. xi 


The great crimes, 


which orders, ‘ that according to the evangelical and apostolical 
discipline, neither the man that is divorced from his wife, nor 
the woman divorced from her husband, shall marry others, but 
either abide so, or be reconciled: and they that contemn this 
order are to be subjected to public penance; and withal a peti- 
tion should be presented to the emperor, to desire him to con- 
firm this rule by an imperial sanction.’ 

From all which we may easily perceive, that this was always 
reckoned a difficult question, whether persons after a lawful di- 
vorce might marry again in the lifetime of the relinquished 
party? The imperial laws allowed it; many of the ancient Fa- 
thers also approved it; some condemned it, but suffered it to 
pass without any public punishment; and others required a 
certain penance to be done for it in the church. Of all which 
different practices the learned reader, that is more curious, may 
find an ample account in Cotelerius’s Notes97 upon Hermes 
Pastor. But though they differed upon this point, there was 
no disagreement upon the other, that to marry a second wife 
after an unlawful divorce, whilst the former was living, was 
professed adultery, and as such to be punished by the sharpest 
censures of the Church. The Apostolical Canons order every 
one to be excommunicated, who either puts away his wife and 
marries again, or marries one that is put away by another. 
And all canons generally agree to debar such from entering 
into holy orders, as marry a wife that is put away by another 
man. The Council of Eliberis goes further, and orders 29 ‘such 


fontem lavacri admitti. Hoc et circa γυναῖκα ἐκβάλλων, ἑτέραν λάβῃ, ἢ 


foeminas catechumenas erit obser- 
vandum., 

% Ὁ. τὴ. (t.2. p. 1541 6.) Placuit, 
ut, secundum evangelicam et apo- 
stolicam disciplinam, neque dimis- 
sus ab uxore, neque dimissa a ma- 
rito, alteri conjungantur: sed ita 
maneant, aut 5101 reconcilientur. 
Quod si contempserint, ad pceniten- 
tiam redigantur. In qua causa le- 
gem imperialem petendam promul- 
gari.—Vid. Cod. Afric. c. 105. [al. 
102. | (ibid. p.1118 ἃ.) Ἤρεσεν ὥστε, 
k.T.A, 

7 V. 1. (p. 88. nn. 2, seqq.) Vi- 
sum olim est principibus Christia- 
nis, &e. 

98 C. 48. [al. 47.] (Cotel. [c. 40.] 
ibid. p.444.) Εἴ τις λαϊκὸς, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 


παρὰ ἄλλου ἀπολελυμένην, ἀφοριζέ- 
o6.— Conf, Basil. c. 48. [Oper. Ba- 
sil. Ep. 199. Canonic. Secund.] (CC. 
t.2. p.1745 0.) Ἡ δὲ ἐγκαταλειφθεῖσα 
παρὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώ- 
μην, μένειν ὀφείλει" εἰ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος 
εἶπεν, ὅτι Eay τις καταλείπῃ γυναῖκα, 
ἐκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοι- 
χᾶσθαι" ἐκ τοῦ μοιχαλίδα αὐτὴν ὀνο- 
μάσαι, ἀπέκλεισεν αὐτὴν τῆς πρὸς ἕτε- 
ρον κοινωνίας. Πῶς γὰρ δύναται ὁ μὲν 
ἀνὴρ ὑπεύθυνος εἶναι, ὡς μοιχείας αἴ- 
τιος, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἀνέγκλητος | al. ἀναί- 
τιος] εἶναι, ἡ μοιχαλὶς παρὰ τοῦ Κυ- 
ρίου, διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον ἄνδρα κοι- 
νωνίαν, προσαγορευθεῖσα; 

99 C. 8. (t.1. p. 971 ἃ.) Foemine, 
que nulla precedente causa relique- 
rint viros suos, et alteris se copula- 


§ 6, 7. 427 


women as forsake their husbands without cause, and marry 
others, to be refused communion even at their last hour.’ And 
‘such as marry men who have put away their wives unjustly, if 
they do it knowingly, are not to be received till the last mo- 
ment of their days,’ or, as other copies read it, ‘no, not at their 
= hour.’ 

. Some canons also press hard upon the second, third, and Of een 
sen marriages, by which they seem not to understand either ee 
simultaneous polygamy, or marrying after divorce, whilst the "ases. 
former wife was living; but marrying two or three wives suc- 
cessively after the death of the former. For though they did 
not account these downright adultery, nor with the Montanists 
and Novatians condemn them as simply unlawful, yet some of 
the Ancients were willing to discourage them, and therefore 
they imposed a certain term of penance upon them. The Council 
of Neoczesarea in one canon! says, ‘They that marry often 
have a time of penance allotted them:’ and in another?, ‘ No 
presbyter shall be present at the marriage-feast of those that 
marry twice: for a digamist requires penance. How then shall 
a presbyter by his presence at such feasts give consent to such 
marriages !’ 

There are many other harsh expressions in Athenagoras, 
Irenzeus, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Jerom and 
others, concerning second and third marriages, which the 
learned reader may find collected by Cotelerius ὃ, in his Notes 
upon Hermes Pastor and the Constitutions. The latter of 
which writers+ declares also against second and third mar- 
riages as transgressions of the law, and brands fourth marriages 


adultery, δ᾽ 6. 


verint, nec in fine accipiant σοτητηι- ἐπεὶ μετάνοιαν αἰτοῦντος τοῦ διγάμου, 


nionem.—C. το. (ibid. e.) Si fuerit 
fidelis, que ducitur ab eo, qui uxo- 
rem inculpatam reliquerit, et cum 
scierit illum habere uxorem, quam 
sine causa reliquit, placuit hujus- 
modi in fine dari communionem [al. 
huic nec in fine dandam esse com- 
munionem ]. 
1C. 3. (ibid. p. 1481 b.) Περὶ τῶν 
πλειστοῖς γάμοις περιπιπτόντων, ὁ ὁ μὲν 
χρόνος σαφὴς ὁ ὡρισμένος" ἡ δὲ a ἄνα- 
στροφὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις αὐτῶν συντέμνει 
“a xpovor. 
. (ibid. d.) Πρεσβύτερον εἰς 
ydpous separ haa μὴ ἑστιᾶσθαι" 


τίς ἔσται ὁ πρεσβύτερος, ὁ διὰ τῆς 
ἑστιάσεως συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς γά- 
μοις ; 

3 In Herm. Past. 1. 2. mandat. 4. 
(v.1. pp.87,88.)—In Constit. Apost. 
1. 3. c. 2. (ibid. p. 275. n. 66.) Kai 
τοῦτο εἰδέναι ὀφείλετε, k. τ. A. Matri- 
monium primum laudat, &c. 

4 Constit. sean ). gi eva: (Cotel. 
Vers pi 275+) + - Avyapia δὲ μετὰ 
ἐπαγγελίαν παράνομον, οὐ διὰ τὴν 
συνάφειαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ψεῦδος" τρι- 
γαμία ἀκρασίας σημεῖον" τὸ δὲ ὑπὲρ 
τὴν τριγαμίαν, προφανὴς πορνεία καὶ 
ἀσελγεια ἀναμφίβολος. 


428 XVI. xi, 


The great crimes, 


with the hard name of προφανὴς πορνεία, manifest fornication. 
But Hermes Pastor is more candid: for in answer to the ques- 
tion, Whether men or women may marry after the death of a 
first consort? he says ", ‘ He that marries sins not: but if he 
continues as he is, he shall obtain great honour of the Lord.’ 
He neither condemns second marriage, nor gives it any hard 
name, nor lays any penalty upon it ; but only makes it matter 
of counsel and advice to refrain under the prospect of a great 
reward. And St. Austin © answers the question after the same 
manner, that he dares not condemn any marriages for the 
number of them, whether they be second, or third, or any 
other. ‘I dare not be wise above what is written. Who am 
I, that I should define what the Apostle has not defined ? 
“The woman is bound,” says the Apostle, “as long as her 
husband liveth.” He said not, the first husband, or the second, 
or the third, or the fourth ; but “ The woman is bound as long 
as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at 
liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 
But she is happier if she so abide.” I see not what can be 
added to or taken from this sentence. Our Lord himself did 
not condemn the woman that had had seven husbands. And 
therefore I dare not, out of my own heart, without the autho- 


5 L. 2. mandat. 4. n. 4. (Cotel. video definisse? Ait enim, Mulier 


ibid. p. go.) Si vir vel mulier alicu- 
jus decesserit, et nupserit aliquis 
ilorum, numquid peccat? Qui nu- 
bit, non peccat, inquit: sed si per 
se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit 
honorem apud Dominum. 

6 De Bon. Viduitat. c. 12. (t. 6. 
p- 376 f.) De tertiis et de quartis et 
de ultra pluribus nuptiis solent ho- 
mines movere questionem. Unde, 
ut breviter respondeam, nec ullas 
nuptias audeo damnare, nec eis vere- 
cundiam numerositatis auferre. Sed 
ne cuiquam brevitas hujus respon- 
sionis mez forte displiceat, uberius 
disputantem reprehensorem meum 
audire paratus sum. Fortassis enim 
affert aliquam rationem, quare se- 
cundz nuptiz non damnentur, ter- 
tie damnentur. Nam ego....non 
audeo plus sapere, quam oportet 
sapere. Quis enim sum, qui putem 
definiendum, quod nec Apostolum 


alligata est, quamdiu vir ejus vivit. 
Non dixit, primus, aut secundus, 
aut ¢ertius, aut quartus: sed Mu- 
ler, inquit, alligata est, quamdiu vir 
ejus vivit: si autem mortuus fuerit 
vir ejus, liberata est: cui vult nubat, 
tantum in Domino. Beatior autem 
erit si sic permanserit. Quid huic 
sententiz, quantum ad hune rem 
attinet, addi vel detrahi possit, ig- 
noro. Deinde ipsum quoque Apo- 
stolorum ac nostrum Magistrum et 
Dominum audio Sadduczis respon- 
dentem, cum proposuissent mulie- 
rem non univiram vel biviram, sed, 
si diei potest, septiviram, in resur- 
rectione cujus futura esset uxor? 
Increpans enim eos, ait, Erratis, non 
scientes Scripturas, neque virtutem 
Dei. In resurrectione enim nec nu- 
bent, nec uxores ducent: non enim 
incipient mori, sed erunt equales an- 
gelis Dei, Korum itaque resurrec- 


§ 7. 


adultery, Sc. 429 


rity of Scripture, condemn any number of marriages whatso- 
ever. But what I say to the widow that has been the wife of 
one man, the same I say to every widow, Thou art happier if 
thou so abidest.’ 

Epiphanius had occasion to dispute the matter both against 
the Montanists and Novatians, where? he says, ‘The Mon- 
tanists were of the number of those who forbid men to marry, 
rejecting all such as were twice married, and compelling them 
not to take a second wife; whereas the Church imposed no 
necessity on men, but only counselled and exhorted those that 
were able, laying no necessity upon the weak, nor rejecting 
them from hopes of eternal life.’ In like manner he blames 
the Noyatians * for making the rule, which was given to the 
clergy, to be the husband of one wife, extend to all: whereas 
it was lawful for the people, after the death of a first wife, to 
marry a second. For though he who was content with one 
wife was had in more honour and esteem by the Church, yet 
the Scripture did not condemn him who married a second 
after the death of the first, or after a divorce made for forni- 
eation or adultery, or any such cause; neither did it reject 
him from the privilege of church-communion or eternal life. 
And it is certain the great Council of Nice thus determined 
the matter? against the Novatians. requiring them upon their 
return to the Church, ‘to make profession in writing that they 


tionem commemoravit, qui resur- 
gent ad vitam, non qui resurgent 
ad penam. Potuit ergo dicere, Er- 
ratis, nescientes Scripturas neque vir- 
tutem Dei; in illa enim resurrec- 
tione multinube istz esse non pote- 
runt: deinde addere, quia nec aliqua 
ibi nubit. Sed nec ipsam, ut vide- 
mus, tot maritorum mulierem ulla 
suz sententiz significatione damna- 
vit. Quapropter nec contra humane 
verecundiz sensum audeo dicere, ut 
quoties voluerit, viris mortuis, nu- 
bat feemina: nec ex meo corde pre- 
ter Scripture sancte auctoritatem 
quotaslibet nuptias audeo condem- 
nare. Quod autem dico univire 
viduz, hoc dico omni vidue; Bea- 
tior eris, si sic permanseris. 

7 Her. 48. Phrygast. 5. Montan. 
ἢ: 9. (t. 1. p. 410. d.) ᾿Εκβάλλουσι 
γὰρ τὸν δευτέρῳ γάμῳ συναφθέντα, 


καὶ ἀναγκάζουσι μὴ δευτέρῳ γάμῳ 
συνάπτεσθαι. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἀνάγκην 
ἐπιτιθέαμεν᾽ ἀλλὰ παραινοῦμεν μετὰ 
συμβουλίας ἀγαθῆς “προτρεπόμενοι τὸν 
δυνάμενον" οὐκ ἀνάγκην δὲ ἐπιτιθέα- 
HEV τῷ “μὴ δυναμένῳ" οὐκ ἐκβάλλομεν 
αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς. 

8 Her. 59. Cathar. 8. ‘ovatian. n. 
4. (ibid. p. 406 ἃ.) Ta a εἰς ἱερωσύ- 
νὴν παρά a ate διὰ τὸ ἐξοχώτατον 
τῆς ἱερουργίας, εἰς πάντας ἐνόμισαν 
ἴσως φέρεσθαι" ἀκηκοότες ὅτι δεῖ τὸν 
ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυ- 
ναικὸς ἄνδρα, κι τ. Χ. See note 93. 
Ρ. 424. 

9.0.8. (t. 2. p. 326.) Πρὸ πάντων 
δὲ τοῦτο ὁμολογῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἐγγράφως 
προσήκει, ὅτι συνθήσονται καὶ ἀκολου- 
θήσουσι τοῖς τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀπο- 
στολικῆς ἐκκλησίας δόγμασι" τοῦτ᾽ 
ἔστι, καὶ διγάμοις κοινωνεῖν, κι τ. Ὰ. 


430 The great crimes, XVI. xij 
would submit to the decrees of the Catholic Church, particu- 
larly in this, that they would διγάμοις κοινωνεῖν, communicate 
with digamists, or those that were twice married. 

So that whatever private opinion some might entertain in 
this matter, or whatever private rules of discipline there might 
be in some particular Churches in relation to digamists; it is 
evident the general rule and practice of the Church was not to 
bring such under discipline, as guilty of any crime, which at 
most was only an imperfection in the opinion of many of those 
who passed an heavier censure on it. As for such as plainly 
condemned second, third, or fourth marriages, as fornication 
or adultery, I see not how they can be justified, or reconciled 
to the practice of the Catholic Church: and therefore I leave 
them to stand or fall by themselves, and go on with the more 
uncontested discipline of the Church against some other prac- 
tices of uncleanness. 

8. Among which they set a peculiar mark upon rayishment, 
that is, using force and violence to virgins and matrons to 
compel them to commit uncleanness. Constantine, in one of 
his laws 19, condemns all sorts of raptors to the flames, as well 
those that ravished vigins against their wills, as those that 
stole them with their own consent against the will of their 
parents. And though Constantius a little moderated the 
punishment, yet he still made it a capital crime 11, to be 
punished with death: and in case a slave was concerned in it, 
he was left to the severity of the former law, to be burned 
alive. Jovian also made it a capital crime !2 for any one not 
only to commit a rape upon a consecrated virgin, but to solicit 
her to marry either willingly or unwillingly against the rules 
of her profession. The laws of the Church could inflict no 
such punishment ; but, when there was occasion, they drew the 
spiritual sword against them. ‘If any one offers violence to a 
virgin not espoused to him, let him be excommunicated,’ say 
the Apostolical Canons 19; ‘neither shall he take any other 


Of ravish- 
ment. 


10 Cod. Theod. 1. g. tit. 24. de 


Raptu Virginum, &c., leg. 1. See 
before, ch. 9. s. 2. p. 377. n.8. 
1 Ibid. leg. 2. See before, ibid. 
- 378. Ὁ. 9. 
12 Tbid. tit. 25. de Raptu vel Ma- 
trimonio Sanctimonialium, leg. 2 
(t. 3. p. 197.) Si quis, non dicam 


rapere, sed vel attemptare matri- 
monii jungendi causa sacratas vir- 
gines, vel invitas, ausus fuerit, capi- 
tali sententia ferietur.—See also Jus- 
tin. Novel. 14. Ne sint lenones, &c. 
( 5 μερὶ 115.) 
C. 67. (Cotel. [e. 59-] v. 

Wes Εἴ τις παρθένον iB Lia τ 


8S; 057 431 


wife, but her whom he has so detained, although she be poor.’ 
St. Basil 1+ condemns those who are guilty of committing rapes 
upon virgins to four years’ penance, as fornicators: where by 
a rape he means the lowest degree of it, that is, stealing a 
virgin espoused to another man, and detaining her against her 
father’s consent. In which he also orders!> not only the raptor 
to be excommunicated, but also his family, and the place or 
village where he dwelt, if they were accomplices, or aiding and 
assisting to him in his usurpation. From whence we may infer, 
that if stealing and detaining a virgin with her own consent 
was thus punishable, the defiling of her by violence was a more 
heinous crime, and censured with greater severity in the disci- 
pline of the Church. 
9. What has hitherto been said relates to the violation of Of unnatu- 
the laws of chastity in the ordinary course of nature. ge 


adultery, Sc. 


Bey ond ties, 
which there were some monstrous impurities, consisting in the 
several species of unnatural uncleanness; such as the defile- 
ment of men with brutes, commonly called bestiality ; and the 
defilement of men with men, working that which is unseemly, 
after the manner of Sodom; and the defilement of men’s own 
bodies with themselves by voluntary self-pollution. Tertul- 
lian 16 calls all these ‘impious furies of lust, which make men 
change the natural use of the sex into that which is against 
nature ;? on which the Church laid an uncommon and singular 
punishment, excluding them not only from all parts of the 
church, but from the very first entrance of it; because they 
were not ordinary crimes, but monsters. 

The Council of Ancyra has two canons relating to these 
crimes, the first 17 of which orders, ‘ that they who are guilty 


βιασάμενος ἰσχῇ; ἀφοριζέσθω" μὴ Yum omni ecclesize tecto submove- 


ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ ἑτέραν λαμβάνειν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνην κατεχεῖν, ἣν καὶ ἡρετί- 
σατο, κἂν πενιχρὰ τυγχάνῃ ; 


14 (,, 22. See before, ch. 9. 8. 2. 
P- 379. . 14. 
lo Ep. 244. [4]. 270. Sine In- 


script. | (t. 3. part. 2. p.603 e.) Kai 
τὴν μὲν παῖδα, K.T.A. See ch. 3. 8.7 
Ρ. 162, latter part of n. 79. 

16 De Pudicit. c. 4. (Ρ. 557 b.) 
Reliquas autem libidinum furias im- 
plas et In corpora, et in sexus ultra 
jura nature, non modo limine, ve- 


mus, quia non sunt delicta, sed 
monstra, 

σι ye, (tet, Ρ. 1461 c.) Περὶ 
τῶν ig Sinisa ἢ καὶ ἀλογευομέ- 
νων᾿ Ὅσοι πρὶν εἰκοσαετεῖς γενέσθαι 
ἥμαρτον, πέντε καὶ δέκα ἔ ἔτεσιν ὑπο- 
πεσόντες, κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς 
εἰς τὰς προσευχάς" εἶτα ἐν τῇ κοινω- 
νίᾳ διατελέσαντες ἔτη πέντε, τότε καὶ 
τῆς προσφορᾶς ἐφαπτέσθωσαν..... 


‘ , 
Ὅσοι δὲ ὑπερβάντες τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύ- 


τὴν, καὶ γυναῖκας ἔχοντες, περιπεπτώ- 
κασι τῷ ἁμαρτήματι, πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι 


432 The great crimes, XVI. xi 


of bestial lusts before they are twenty years old, be prostrators 
fifteen years, and after that communicate in prayers only for 
five years; but if they exceed that age, and be married when 
they fall into this sin, they are to be prostrators twenty-five 
years, and five years after communicate in prayers only ; if 
they are above fifty years old, and be married, they are to do 
penance all their lives, and only communicate at the point of 
death.’ The next canon 15 orders, ‘that they who are guilty 
of bestial lusts, and are leprous, (that is, infect others by 
tempting and teaching them to commit the same sin,) should 
pray εἰς τοὺς χειμαζομένους, inter hyemantes, that is, either 
among the demoniacs, or those that were exposed to the 
weather without the walls of the church. Suicerus!9 thinks 
this canon is to be understood of those that were infected with 
the corporal disease of leprosy, who by the old law were re- 
moved without the camp; but it is more probable it means the 
spiritual leprosy of those who infected others with the con- 
tagion of the same beastly sins, and taught or tempted them 
to commit the same uncleanness. For otherwise, leprosy under 
the Gospel would not deserve the extremity of punishment, 
but commiseration and mercy. St. Basil2° imposes the penance 
of adulterers, that is, twenty years’ penance, both upon those 
that abuse themselves with beasts, and those that abuse them- 


selves with mankind. And sometimes 21 he lengthens the term 


dos, ne scilicet sui corporis contagio 


ἔτη ὑποπεσέτωσαν' καὶ κοινωνίας LD he 
ceeteros inficerent, ut ibi poeniten- 


χανέτωσαν τῆς εἰς τὰς προσευχάς" 


εἶτα ἐκτελέσαντες πέντε ἔτη ἐν τῇ 
κοινωνίᾳ τῶν εὐχῶν, τυγχανέτωσαν 
τῆς προσφορᾶς. Ei δέ τινες καὶ y- 
vaikas ἔχοντες, καὶ ὑπερβάντες τὸν 
πεντηκονταετῆ χρόνον, ἥμαρτον, ἐπὶ 
τῇ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ βίου τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς 
κοινωνίας. 

18 (. τγ. (ibid.e.) Τοὺς ἀλογευσα- 
μένους καὶ λεπροὺς ὄντας, ἤτοι λε- 
πρώσαντας, τούτους προέταξεν ἡ ἁγία 
σύνοδος εἰς τοὺς χειμαζομένους εὔ- 
χεσθαι. 

19 Thes. Eccles. voce, Λεπρὸς. (t. 2. 
p. 226.) Hoc igitur decimo septimo 
canone [Ancyrano] addunt: si ejus- 
modi homines leprosi fuerint, ad 
hiemantes, id est, extra omnem ec- 
clesize ambitum, εἰς ὑπαίθριον καὶ τὰ 
τοῦ ναοῦ προαύλια esse submoven- 


tiam, que canone precedenti defi- 
nita fuerat, peragant. Mosaica lege 
(Levit. 13, 46. Numer. 5, 2.) leprosi 
a reliquo ccetu prohibentur, qui mos 
in Europa viget, non religionis sed 
sanitatis causa. 

20 C. 62. (Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert. ] (CC. t.2. p. 1749 ἃ.) 
Ὁ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην ἐν τοῖς ἄρρεσιν 
ἐπιδεικνύμενος, τὸν χρόνον [4]. τῷ 
χρόνῳ] τοῦ ἐν τῇ μοιχείᾳ παρανο- 
μοῦντος οἰκονομηθήσεται. --- Ibid. c. 
63. (Oper. Basil. ibid. | (CC. ibid. 
ἃ.) Ὁ ev ἀλόγοις τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀσέβειαν 
ἐξαγορεύων, τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον [4]. λό- 
γον] ἐξομολογούμενος παραφυλάξε- 
ται. 

21 C. 7. (Oper. Basil. Ep. 188. 
Canonic. Prim.] (CC. ibid. 1724 a.) 


adultery, &c. 433 


to thirty years, comparing these sins with murder, idolatry, 
witchcraft and adultery; which, he says, all deserve the same 
punishment. 

The Council of Eliberis 2? imposes a severer punishment 
upon those that so abuse boys to satisfy their lusts; for such 
are denied communion even at their last hour. The laws of 
the old Romans had provided no sufficient remedy for these 
corruptions. There was an old law, called the Lea Scantinia, 
mentioned by Juvenal 23 and some others®+: but it lay dor- 
mant for many ages, till the Christian emperors came to re- 
vive it. The frequent complaints that are made by the 
Christian writers of the three first ages, Clemens Alexandri- 
nus 35, Justin Martyr 26, Tatian 27, Minucius Felix 38, Tertul- 
han29, Cyprian 30, and Lactantius?!, sufficiently show that these 


᾿Αρρενοφθόροι καὶ ζωοφθόροι, καὶ po- 
veis, καὶ φαρμακοὶ, καὶ μοιχοὶ, καὶ 
εἰδωλολάτραι, τῆς αὐτῆς καταδίκης 
εἰσὶν ἠξιωμένοι, κ. τ.λ.---Οοπῇ, Greg. 
Nyssen. Ep. ad Letoium. c. 4. t. 2. 
p. 118 c. (CC. [c. 3.] ibid. p. 1784 
b.) Διπλασίων ὡρίσθη τῆς ἐπιστρο- 
φῆς ὁ χρόνος τοῖς ἐν μοιχείᾳ μιαν- 
θεῖσι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπηγορευμένοις κα- 
κοῖς, ζωοφθορίᾳ τε καὶ τῇ κατὰ ἄρρε- 
vas λύσση. 

22 C. 71. (t. 1. p. 978 a.) Stupra- 
toribus puerorum nec in fine dandam 
esse communionem. 

23 Sat. 2. v.43. (ap. Corp. Poet. 
Lat. t. 2. p. 1144.) 

Quod si vexantur leges ac jura, ci- 
tari 
Ante omnes debet Scatinia. . 

24 Valer. Max. 1. 6. ς. 1. [s. il 
(Antw. 1621. p. 224.) M. Claudius 
Marcellus, zedilis curulis, C. Scatinio 
Capitolino, trib. pl., diem ad popu- 
lum dixit, quod filium suum de stu- 
pro appellasset: eoque asseverante, 
se cogi non posse ut adesset, quia 
sacrosanctam potestatem haberet, et 
ob id tribunitium auxilium implo- 
rante, totum collegium tribunorum 
negavit se intercedere, quo minus 
pudicitie questio perageretur. Ci- 
tatus itaque Scatinius reus, uno teste, 
qui tentatus erat, damnatus est. 

25 Peedagog. 1. 1. c. 3. (p. 101. 28.) 
[Vid. presertim, |. 2. c. 10. pp. 220, 
seqq. Ep.] 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


26 Apol. 2. (p. 50 68.) Διὸς δὲ καὶ 
τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν μιμηταὶ γενόμενοι ἐν 
τῷ ἀνδροβατεῖν καὶ γυναιξὶν ἀδέως 
μίγνυσθαι" k.t.A.— [Apol. 2. (p. 67 ¢.) 
Μιμητὰς γὰρ θεῶν καλὸν εἶναι πάντες 
ἡγοῦνται" ἀπείη. δὲ σωφρονούσης ψυ- 
χῆς, ἔννοια, τοιαύτη περὶ θεῶν, ἁ ὡς καὶ 
αὐτὸν τὸν ἡγεμόνα καὶ γεννήτορα πάν- 
τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς Δία, πατροφόντην τε 
καὶ πατρὸς τοιούτου γενονέναι, ἔρωτί 
τε κακῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν ἡδονῶν ἥττω 
γενόμενον, ἐπὶ Γανυμήδην καὶ τὰς πολ- 
λὰς μοιχευθείσας γυναῖκας ἐλθεῖν, καὶ 
τοὺς αὐτοῦ παῖδας τὰ ὅμοια πράξαντας 
παραδέξασθαι. Grischov. | 

27 Orat. ad Grec. p. 165. (ad cale. 
J ust. Mart. Ρ. 164. lin. ult.) Παιδε- 
ραστία “μὲν ὑπὸ βαρβάρων διώκεται, 
προνομίας δὲ ὑπὸ ‘ Ῥωμαίων ἠξίωται, 
παίδων ἀγέλας ὥσπερ ἵππων φορβά- 
dwv συναγείρειν αὐτῶν πειρωμένων. 

28 Octav. p. 68. (c. 22. p. 112.) 
Quid loquar Martis et Veneris adul- 
terilum cpa adore et in Gany- 
medem Jovis stuprum ceelo conse- 
cratum? quz omnia in hoc prodita, 
ut vitiis hominum quedam auctori- 
tas pararetur. 

29 De Monogam. c. 12. (p. 533 ἢ.) 
Sicut ille vester Uthinensis nec Scan- 
tiniam timuit.—Ad Nation. 1. 1. ¢ 
16. (p. 51 a.) Date igitur aliquam 
nationem vacantem ab eis, que om- 
ne hominum genus ad incestum 
trahunt. Si qua gens concubitu 
ipso et ewtatis ac sexus necessitate, 


rf 


484 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


vices were practised with impunity among the Heathen. The 
law made against them was only a pecuniary mulct*?, and that 
was very rarely put in execution against them. Suetonius 8 
says, Domitian in the first and good part of his reign con- 
demned some few offenders by this law: but the distemper 
grew so raging and inveterate afterwards, that Alexander 
Severus, a much better prince, durst not effectually set about 
the cure of it, as Lampridius*4 testifies in his Life. After him 
Philip the emperor, who by some is called a Christian, made 
a new law to forbid it; but the main business devolved at last 
upon those that were more undoubtedly Christians. Among 
whom Constantius 3°, by one of his laws exstant in both the 
Codes, made it a capital crime, and ordered it to be punished 
with death by the sword. Theodosius added to the penalty by 
a severer sanction 56, ordering ‘ that such as were found guilty 
of this unnatural vice should be burnt alive in the presence of 
all the people.’ 

Thus the civil and ecclesiastical laws combined together to 
exterminate all sorts of uncleanness; deterring men from such 
acts of impurity as were a scandal to the Christian profession, 
by such penalties, temporal and spiritual, as were thought 
most proper to be inflicted in order to restrain them. 


Of main- 10. Neither was it only the direct and immediate acts of 
teas? uncleanness they thus censured and punished, but all other acts 
harlots. 


ne dixerim libidine et luxuria, caret, nia [s. Scatinia] condemnavit. 


ea erit, que carebit incesto: si qua 
ab humana conditione privata qua- 
dam natura remota est, ut neque 
ignorantiz, neque errori, neque ca- 
sui opposita sit, ea erit, que sola 
Christianis respondere constantius 
possit. 

3° Ad Donat. p. 6. (p. 5.) Libidi- 
nus insanis in viros virl proruunt. 

31 Instit. ]. 5. c. 9. (t. 1. p. 384.) 
Qui corpora sua libidinibus 
prostituant ; qui denique immemo- 
res, quid nati sint, cum foeminis pa- 
tientia certent, &c. 

32 Vid. Quintilian. Instit. 1. 4. 6.2. 
p- 187. (p. 238 summ.).... Decem 
millia, que poena stupratori consti- 
tuta est, &c. 

33 Vit. Domit. c.8. (p.332.) Quos- 
dam ex utroque ordine lege Scanti- 


34 Vit. Alexandr. Sever. c. 24. p. 
350. (int. Aug. Hist. Scriptor. p.532.) 
Habuit in animo ut exoletos vetaret, 
quod postea Philippus fecit; sed 
veritus est, ne prohibens publicum 
dedecus in privatas cupiditates con- 
verteret; cum homines illicita magis 
poscant, prohibitaque furore perse- 
quantur. 

39 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 7. ad Le- 
gem Juliam de Adulteris, leg. 3. (t.3. 
p- 59.) Cum vir nubit in feeminam 
....ubi Venus mutatur in alteram 
formam, .... jubemus insurgere le- 
ges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut 
exquisitis peenis subdantur infames. 

36 Tbid. leg. 6. (p.62.).... Hujus- 
modi scelus, exspectante populo, 
flammis vindicibus expiabunt. 


ὁ το. 


435 


that opened and prepared the way to them. Of which kind the 
maintaining or encouraging of harlots, publicly or privately, 
was reckoned a most infamous practice. Great complaints have 
been made by writers 57, of divers kind, of the licentiousness of 
many modern Popes in granting tolerations at Rome to such 
lewd and wicked practices, and receiving annual pensions for 
the toleration of them. But the ancient laws, both civil and 
ecclesiastical, were far from such abuses. Heathen Rome, in 
this respect, was more chaste and modest than the modern 
papacy. For even there we find a law, recorded out of Papi- 
nian in the Pandects 3%, ‘ that whoever wittingly let his house 
be the place to commit fornication, or adultery with another 
man’s wife, or any defilement with mankind, or made any gain 
of the adultery of his own wife, should be punished as an 
adulterer, of whatever condition he was.’ And it is remarkable 
in the laws of Constantine 39, that a man was allowed to put 
away his wife, not only if she was an adulteress herself, but if 
she was a conciliatrix, a pander or procurer of adultery in 


adultery, §c. 


others. 


37 Vid. Zepper. Legum Mosaica- 
rum Explanat. 1. 4. c. 18. (p. 457.) 
Paulus Tertius in tabellis quadra- 
ginta quinque meretricum millia nu- 
merata habebat, ex quarum fornica- 
tione singulis mensibus censum ex- 
egit, queeque cum Papa die noctu- 
que consuetudinem habebant, et in 
summo honore a Papa habebantur. 
—Agripp. de Vanitat. Scientiar. c. 
64. (ap. Mornei Myster. Iniquitat. 
Ρ- 594.) Inter lenones recentiorum 
temporum, inquit Agrippa, qui lu- 
panaria edificabant, nobilis erat 
Sixtus IV. Romanus pontifex, qui 
Rome nobile admodum lupanar ex- 
struxit, atque utrique Veneri assig- 
navit: meretricum cohortes, Helio- 
gabali exemplo, ita aluit, amicisque 
et servis exhibuit, non nihil emolu- 
menti ex meretricio questu zrario 
suoaccumulans. Romana enim scor- 
ta in singulas hebdomadas Julium 
nummum adhuc pendent pontifici, 
gui census annuus nonnunquam vi- 
ginti millia ducatos excedit: adeo- 
que procerum ecclesie id munus 
est, ut una cum ecclesiarum proven- 
tibus, etiam lenociniorum numerent 


By the laws of Theodosius Junior *°, if any parent or 


mercedem.— Wesel. Groning. de In- 
dulgentiis Papalibus, (ap. Morn. ibid. 
ad calc. p. ejusd.) Ad preedicti Petri, 
tunc S. Sixti cardinalis ac patriarche 
Constantinopolitani et Hieronymi 
fratris sui postulationes, domestic 
familiz toti cardinalis D. Luci, qui 
Paulo secundo a venationibus fue- 
rat, in tribus mensibus anni calidio- 
ribus Junio, Julio et Augusto, mas- 
culino coitu frui permisit, cum hac 
clausula, Fiat ut petitur. 

38 Digest. 1. 48. tit. 5. ad Leg. Jul. 
de Adult. leg. 8. (t.3. Ρ. 1445.) Qui 
domum suam, ut stuprum adulte- 
riumve cum aliena matre familias, 
vel cum masculo fieret, sciens pre- 
buerit, vel questum ex adulterio 
uxoris sue fecerit, cujuscunque sit 
conditionis, quasi adulter punitur. 

39 Cod. Theod. 1. 3. tit. 16. de 
Repudiis, leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 310.) In 
masculis etiam, si repudium mit- 
tant, hee tria crimina inquiri con- 
veniet, si meecham, vel medicamen- 
tariam, vel conciliatricem repudiare 
voluerit. 

40 Cod. Justin. 1. 11. tit. 40. de 
Spectaculis et Scenicis et Lenonibus, 


Ff 2 


436 XVI. xi. 


The great crimes, 


master prostituted his daughter or his female slave, they were 
to forfeit all right of dominion over them: the parties so com- 
pelled might appeal to the bishop of the place, or the judge, or 
the defensor, and require their assistance or protection; and 
if after that their superiors, master, or father, would go on as 
panders still to compel them, their goods were to be confiscated, 
and their persons banished and sent to the mines. 

Socrates 4+! commends Theodosius the Great for another 
good law, whereby he demolished the infamous houses, com- 
monly called sistra, at Rome. For till his time a very evil 
custom prevailed there, that when any woman was taken in 
adultery, she was condemned by way of punishment to be a 
common prostitute in the public stews: which kind of punish- 
ment, as Socrates truly remarks, did no ways contribute to- 
wards her amendment, but only compelled her to add sin to 
sin. Therefore Theodosius, in his zeal for the piety and purity 
of the Christian religion, abolished this impudent and scandal- 
ous punishment; providing other penalties for adultery, and 
destroying these infamous houses out of Rome. 

Theodosius Junior did the same good service at Constanti- 
nople, by a new law #2, ordering all panders who kept infamous 
houses ‘ to be publicly whipped and expelled the city, and that 
all their slaves, whom they kept for such vile purposes, should 


be set at liberty.’ 


leg. 6. (t. 5. p. 160 ad cale.) Lenones, 
patres et dominos, qui suis filiabus, 
vel ancillis peccandi necessitatem 
imponunt; nec jure frui dominii, 
nec tanti criminis patimur libertate 
gaudere. Igitur tali placet eos in- 
dignatione subduci, ne potestatis ju- 
re frui valeant, neve quis [leg. quid] 
eis ita possit acquiri: sed ancillis 
filiabusque, si velint, conductisve pro 
paupertate personis, quas sors dam- 
navit humilior, episcoporum liceat, 
judicum etiam defensorumque im- 
plorato suffragio omni miseriarum 
necessitate absolvi: ita ut si insis- 
tendum eis lenones esse crediderint, 
vel peccandi ingerant necessitatem 
invitis, amittant non solum eam, 
quam habuerint potestatem, sed pro- 
scripti poenz mancipentur exsilii, 
metallis addicendi publicis.— Vid. 
Cod. Theod. 1. 15. tit. 8. de Lenoni- 


And whereas hitherto these wretches had 


bus, leg. 2. (t. 5. p. 310.) where 
nearly the same words occur. 

4. L. 5. c. 18. (¥. ΒΡ: ΘΕ ΠΕΣ 
Ei ἥλω ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ γυνὴ, ov διορθώ- 
σει, ἀλλὰ προσθήκη τῆς ἁμαρτίας 
ἐτιμωροῦντο τὴν πταίσασαν" ἐν γὰρ 
πορνείῳ στενῷ κατάκλειστον ποιήσαν- 
τες, ἀναιδῶς ἐποίουν πορνεύεσθαι. ... 
Ταῦτα οὐκ ἤνεγκεν ὁ βασιλεὺς, πυθό- 
μενος τὴν ἀναιδῆ συνήθειαν, ἀλλὰ κα- 
τέλυσε τὰ σεῖστρα, οὕτω γὰρ ὠνομά- 
ζετο τὰ τοιαῦτα πορνεῖα᾽ τοῖς ἄλλοις 
ὑποπίπτειν νόμοις τὰς ἁλούσας ἐπὶ 
μοιχείᾳ κελεύσας. 

42 Novel. 18. de Lenonibus, ad 
calc. Cod. Theod. (t. 6. append. p. 
10.)....In libertatem prius miser- 
rimis mancipiis vindicatis, vel inge- 
nuis personis conductione impia li- 
beratis, gravissime verberatus hujus 
urbis finibus .. . . pellatur. 


adultery, Sc. 437 


kept up their trade in spite of former laws, under pretence of 
paying a certain annual tax to the government out of their in- 
famous gain, Theodosius abrogated this tax ; and in lieu of it, 
one Florentius, a nobleman by whose pious advice the emperor 
did this, gave an equivalent out of his own estate to the ex- 
chequer, that there might be no.deficiency or damage accruing 
to the public revenue, which might afterwards be used as a 
plea to grant these miscreants a new toleration. Thus these 
pious emperors laboured to extirpate this abominable vice out 
of their two great capitals. And when some remainders of it 
continued, notwithstanding all their endeavours, Justinian re- 
sumed the matter, reviving and confirming all the preceding 
laws by a new edict of his own 4, and augmenting the punish- 
ments specified in them, to root out this abominable way of 
making provision for lewdness throughout his whole empire. 

_ As to the ecclesiastical laws, there is no crime they punished 
more severely than this. As may be easily collected from the 
canons of the Council of Eliberis; one4* of which orders, ‘ that 
if a father or a mother or any Christian exercise the trade of 
a pander, forasmuch as they set to sale the body of another, 
or rather their own, they shall not be received to communion, 
no not at their last hour.’ And another‘> decrees, ‘that if a 
woman commit adultery by the consent of her husband, they 
shall be rejected even to the last.’ The reason of this is 
grounded upon what Tertullian*® observes of the law prohibit- 
ing fornication, that it equally forbids any one to be aiding or 
assisting or conscious to another in the practice of it. ‘ For 
what I may not do myself, I may not be instrumental to have 
it done by others. And therefore by the same reason that I 


43 Justin. Novel. 14. (t.5. p.115-) 
Et antiquis legibus, et dudum im- 
perantibus satis odibile visum est 
esse lenonum causam et nomen, in 
tantum ut, &c... Nos autem dudum 
posita contra eos, qui sic impie a- 
gunt, supplicia auximus; et si quid 
relictum est a nostris pradecesso- 
ribus, etiam hoc per alias correximus 
leges, &c. 

44 C. 12. (t.1. Ρ. 0972 4.) Mater 
vel parens vel quelibet fidelis, si 
lenocinium exercuerit ; eo quod ali- 
enum vendiderit corpus, vel potius 
suum, placuit eas nec in fine acci- 


pere communionem. 

45 C. 70. (ibid. p.g78 a.) Si con- 
scio marito [al. cum conscientia 
mariti] fuerit moechata uxor, placuit 
nec in fine dandam ei esse commu- 
nionem. 

46 De Idolol. c. 11. (p. gt a.) 
Nam quod mihi de stupro inter- 
dictum sit, aliis ad eam rem nibil 
aut oper aut conscientiz exhibeo. 
Nam quod ipsam carnem meam a 
lupanaribus segregavi, agnosco me 
neque lenocinium neque id genus 
lucrum alterius causa exercere 
posse. 


438 The great crimes, XVI. xu 


keep my own body from the common stews, I own myself 
obliged neither to promote that infamous trade, nor raise any 
gain by or for others by such vile practices.’ Albaspiny47 
rightly observes from the forementioned canons, that this crime 
was esteemed greater than fornication and adultery itself: 
because adulterers were received to the peace of the Church 
after a certain term of penance, but this crime was denied com- 
munion to the last. 

11. Another way of promoting uncleanness was the writing 
or reading lascivious or obscene books and plays, than which 
there is no greater incentive or provocation to impurity. And 
therefore as the Ancients burned and abolished all sorts of 
heretical books, that they might not corrupt the faith; so they 
equally forbad the writing or reading all other pernicious 
books, which tended to debauch the morals of Christians, and 
severely censured the authors of them, if any such were com- 


Of writing 
and reading 
lascivious 
books. 


posed by Christian writers. 


47 [In Can. 12. C. Eliber. (t. 1. 
p-992 c.) Gravius puniuntur leno- 
nes, et earum turpitudinum artifices, 
quam ipsamet adulteria et virginum 
stuprationes. Nam Zephyrini edic- 
to, moechie et fornicationi peeniten- 
tia functis, veniam in morte, vel post 
longam peenitentiam, concessam le- 
gimus: hoc vero canone ea ipsa 
moribundis lenonibus, et parentibus, 
qui questum ex filiarum stupro fe- 
cerint, denegatur: cujus severioris 
discipline hance rationem adducunt, 
quod suum (ad parentes id refertur) 
aut alienum vendiderint corpus, hoc 
est, pessumdederint, perdiderint, et 
libidini manciparint. Grischov. | 

48° Lib. Ἐ- τ, 22.)(¥-'2. p 207. Τὴ) 
᾿Αλλὰ τοῦ μὲν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ ἔθους 
ἀρχηγὸς Ἡλιόδωρος, Τρίκκης τῆς ἐκεῖ 
γενόμενος, οὗ λέγεται πονήματα, ἐρω- 
τικὰ βιβλία, ἃ νέος ὧν ἔταξε καὶ Ai- 
θιοπικὰ προσηγόρευσε. [This He- 
liodorus flourished in the reigns of 
Theodosius and Honorius, towards 
the end of the fourth century. His 
celebrated romance relates the his- 
tory of Theagines and Chariclea in 
ten books. The work scarcely de- 
serves the title of lascivious; but 
possibly what Socrates says may re- 
late to some erotic poems not ex- 


Socrates#® says Heliodorus, a 


stant. The learned Huetius was of 
opinion that this Heliodorus was 
among the romance-writers what 
Homer was among the poets, the 
source and model of an infinite 
number of imitations, all inferior to 
their original. The first edition of 
the Ethiopics was printed at Basle 
1533, with a dedication to the senate 
of Nuremberg, prefixed by Vincen- 
tius Opsopzus, who informs us that 
a soldier preserved the MS., when 
the library of Buda was plundered. 
Bourdelot’s learned notes upon the 
book were printed at Paris in 1619 
with the original Greek and a Latin 
translation, which was first made by 
a Polish knight, Stanislaus Wars- 
zewicki, and published also with the 
Greek at Basle in 1551. A good 
English translation was published 
by Mr. Payne, London, 1792, in 
two vols. 12mo. See more in Chal- 
mers’ Biographical Dictionary, v. 
17. p. 321.—Among ‘the testimo- 
nies of eminent persons concerning 
the following work,’ which Mr. Tate 
has prefixed to his translation into 
English of the Ethiopian History 
(London, 1686, 8vo.) is the follow- 
ing, from the second book of Dr. 
Heylin’s Cosmography, (Lond. 1666, 


§ 11,12. adultery, &c. 439 


Thessalian bishop, when he was a young man, wrote a 
lascivious romance called his Ethiopics; which others‘? tell 
us occasioned a censure to be passed upon him when he was 
bishop, and he was deprived of his bishopric because he would 
not recant it. For the same reason they utterly discouraged 
the reading of such Heathen books as were stuffed with im- 
purities; and some canons were made to prohibit the clergy 
especially from conversing with such writers, of which I have 
given a more ample account in a former Book*°. 

12. They are equally severe in their invectives against all Frequent- 
frequenters of the theatre and public stage-plays upon the 780" | 
same account : because these were the great nurseries of im- stage-plays 

- ; -,, forbidden 
purity, where incest and adultery were represented with upon this 


abominable obscenity, and in a manner acted over again, to account. 


corrupt the spectators by their contagion and example. ‘ Here,’ 


as Cyprian®! says, 


p- 601.) where, describing Thessaly, 
᾿ mentions Tricca as ‘ the episcopal 
see of Heliodorus, the author of that 
ingenious piece called the Ai thiopic 
History, which he so prized that he 
chose rather to lose his bishopric, 
than consent to the burning of his 
book, which a provincial synod had 
adjudged to the fire. A piece in- 
deed of rare contexture and neat 
contrivance, without any touch of 
loose or lascivious language, honest 
and chaste affection being the sub- 
ject of it, not such as old or modern 
poets show us in the comedies or 
other poems. For here we have no 
incestuous mixtures of fathers and 
daughters, no panderism of old 
nurses, no unseemly action specified, 
where heat of blood and opportunity 
do meet, nor indeed any one passage 
unworthy of the chastest ear.’-—This 
account of the book is quite just, 
and may serve to vindicate the au- 
thor of a romantic love-tale from 
the obloquy which the statement of 
Nicephorus seems to have thrown 
upon his name. There it a quaint 
metrical version of the same ro- 
mance by Wm. Lisle, London, 1638. 
Ep. 

‘3 Nicephorus, Hist. 1. 12. c. 34. 
(t.2. p. 296 d. 5.) οὗ ᾿[λιοδώρου] 


ποιήματα ἐρωτικὰ εἰσέτι νῦν περι- 


‘adultery was learned by seeing it acted ; 


φέρεται, ἃ ἃ νέος ὦ ὧν συνετάξατο, Αἰθι- 
οπικὰ προσαγορεύσας αὐτά" νῦν δὲ 
καλοῦσι ταῦτα Χαρίκλειαν" δὶ a kat 
τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἀφηρέθη. ᾿Επειδὴ yap 
πολλοῖς τῶν νέων κινδυνεύειν ἐκεῖθεν 
ἐπῇει, ἡ ἐ ἐγχώριος προσέταττε σύνοδος, 
ἢ τὰς βίβλους ἀφανίζειν, καὶ πυρὶ δα- 
πανᾷν, ὑπαναπτούσας τὸν ἔρωτα, ἢ μὴ 
χρῆναι ἱερᾶσθαι τοιαῦτα συνθέμενον" 
τὸν δὲ μᾶλλον ἑλέσθαι τὴν ἱερωσύνην 
λιπεῖν ἢ ἐκ μέσου τιθέναι τὸ σύγ- 
γραμμα. 

ὅ0. Β 6: ch: 5: 8: 4. ν. 2. p. 203. 

51 Ad Donat. p. 6. (p. 4.) Adul- 
terium discitur, dum videtur; et 
lenocinante ad vitia publice aucto- 
ritatis malo, que pudica fortasse ad 
spectaculum matrona processerat, 
de spectaculo revertitur impudica. 
Adhuc deinde morum quanta labes? 
que proborum fomenta? que ali- 
menta vitiorum, histrionicis gestibus 
inquinari? videre contra foedus jus- 
que nascendi patientiam inceste 
turpitudinis elaboratam? Evirantur 
mares, honor omnis et vigor sexus 
enervati corporis dedecore mollitur, 
plusque illic placet, quisquis virum 
in feeminam magis fregerit; in lau- 
dem crescit ex crimine, et peritior 
quo turpior judicatur. Spectatur 
hic, proh nefas! et libenter. Quid 
non possit suadere, qui talis est? 
Movet sensus, mulcet affectus, ex- 


440 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


provocations to vice were so much the stronger, because they 
were recommended by the authority of great examples; the 
matron, which perhaps came chaste to the theatre, returned 
back with a contrary disposition. The very gestures of the 
actors were enough to corrupt men’s morals, being fomenters 
of vice, and purveyors of nutriment for corrupt distempers. 
Venus they represented in all her lewd behaviour; Mars, as 
an adulterer; and their Jupiter, no less a prince in his vices 
than in his kingdom, burning with his thunderbolts in earthly 
amours, sometimes shining in the plumes of a swan, sometimes 
descending in a golden shower, and sometimes sending out his 
eagles to fetch him a beautiful Ganymede. Consider now 
whether a spectator can be innocent and chaste in viewing 
such sights as these. Men imitate the gods which they 
worship, and by this means become more wretched, because 
their very vices are consecrated into religion.’ He speaks this 
against the Heathen spectators, but the main of his arguments 
will equally hold against the Christian. For the theatres by 
reason of their impurities were places of unavoidable tempta- 
tion; ‘the Devil’s own ground, his own property and posses- 
sion;’ as Tertullian*? says, the Devil once called them, when 
‘being asked by a Christian exorcist, in the case of a woman 
who was seized by him at the theatre, How he durst presume 
to possess a Christian? he answered confidently, I had a right 
to do it, for I found her upon my own ground.’ Tertullian53 


pugnat boni pectoris conscientiam 
fortiorem: nec deest probri blandi- 
entis auctoritas, ut auditu molliore 
pernicies hominibus obrepat. Ex-~ 
primunt impudicam Venerem, adul- 
terum Martem; et Jovem illum 
suum, non magis regno quam vitiis 
principem, in terrenos amores cum 
ipsis suis fulminibus ardentem, nunc 
in plumis oloris albescere, nunc au- 
reo imbre defluere, nunc in puero- 
rum pubescentium raptus ministris 
avibus prosilire. Quere jam nunc, 
an possit esse, qui spectat, integer 
vel pudicus. Deos suos, quos ve- 
nerantur, imitantur: fiunt miseris 
et religiosa delicta. 

52 De Spectac. c. 26. (p. 83 ¢.).. 
In meo eam inveni. 

53 Thid.c. 10.(p. 77 b.) Theatrum 


proprie sacrarium Veneris est. Hoc 
denique modo id genus operis in 
seeculo evasit. Nam szpe censores 
nascentia cum maxime theatra de- 
struebant, moribus consulentes, quo- 
rum scilicet periculum ingens de 
lascivia providebant, ut jam hine 
ethnicis in testimonium cedat sen- 
tentia ipsorum nobiscum faciens, et 
nobis in exaggerationem discipline 
etiam humane prerogativa. Itaque 
Pompeius Magnus, solo theatro suo 
minor, ruinas, cum illam arcem 
omnium turpitudinum exstruxisset, 
veritus quandoque memorize suze 
censoriam animadversionem, Vene- 
ris edem superposuit, et, ad dedica- 
tionem edicto populum vocans, non 
theatrum, sed Veneris templum nun- 
cupavit. Cui subjecimus, inquit, 


§ 12. 


adultery, &c. 441 


says further, ‘ that the theatre is properly the temple of Venus 
upon a double account, both because it was the school of 
lasciviousness, and because when Pompey built his famous 
theatre, he was forced to set the temple of Venus upon it, for 
fear the Roman censors should demolish it τ᾿ as they had done 
some others, in their concern for the morals of the people, 
which they were sensible were corrupted by the poison and 
infection of the theatres, which were nothing else, in the 
opinion of the more graye and sober Romans, but the citadel 
and fortress of all impure and lascivious practices. 

For this reason, therefore, as well as because they were ac- 
companied with idolatrous rites, Tertullian and all the Ancients 
declaim against them, and forbid Christians to frequent them, 
under pain of being deemed guilty of all the impurities of the 
place, and partakers of all the lewdness committed in them. 
As this was one part of their baptismal renunciation, where the 
impurities of the stage were virtually renounced in renouncing 
the pomps of Satan*+; so it was necessary for a Christian to 
abstain from them as a spectator, for fear of losing his title to 
Christian communion, and being accounted a renegado to his 
first profession. It is certain it was so in the time of Tertullian, 
and when the Author of the Constitutions®> drew up his col- 
lections. But in after-ages, because the civil laws allowed the 
interludes of the theatre for the diversion of the people, when 
they were purged from idolatry, but not from lewdness, the 
fathers contented themselves to declaim against them with 
sharp invectives, and correct that reigning humour by serious 
admonitions, which the iniquity of the times would not suffer 
them to do by the more exact and primitive discipline of the 
Church. Any one that will consult St. Chrysostom’s*®, or 


us spectaculorum. Ita damna- ἢ ἀποβαλλέσθωσαν. 
Ρ 7 


56 Hom. 6. 


tum et damnandum opus templi 
titulo pretexit, et disciplinam super- 
stitione delusit. 

54 See b. 11. ch. 7. 8. 2. V. 4. p. 
121. Whence it is plain, &c. 

55 1, 8. c. 32. (Cotel. v. 1. p. 412.) 
Τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς ἐάν τις προσείη ἀνὴρ, 
ἢ γυνὴ, ἢ ἡνίοχος, ἢ μονομάχος, ἢ 
σταδιοδρόμος, ἢ ἢ λουδεμπιστὴς, ἢ ἢ ᾽ο- 
λυμπικὸς, ἢ ἢ “χοραύλης, ἢ ἢ κιθαριστὴς, 
ἢ λυριστὴς, ἢ ἢ ὁ τὴν ὄρχησιν ἐπιδεικ- 
νύμενος, ἢ κάπηλος, ἢ παυσάσθωσαν. 


in Matth. (t. 7 
99 b, seqq.) Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ θέατρα 
K. T. at. 73. de S. Barlaam. 
p- 893. (t. 2. p. 687 a.) Οὐχ 
es τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν θεάτρων καταβαί- 
νοντας μαλακωτέρους γινομένους ; τὸ 
δὲ αἴτιον, ὅτι μετὰ σπουδῆς τοῖς ἐκεῖ 
γινομένοις προσέχουσι καὶ γὰρ ὀφ- 
θαλμῶν περιστροφὰς, καὶ χειρῶν περι- 
δονήσεις, καὶ ποδῶν κύκλους, καὶ πάν- 
των τῶν ἐν τῇ διαστροφῇ τοῦ λυ- 
γισθέντος σώματος φανέντων εἰδώλων 


442 


The great crimes, 


Cyril’s Catechisms*’, or Salvian>*, may find this observation 
true, that though the Canons did not now make it peremptory 
excommunication for a man to frequent the theatre, yet the 
Fathers inveighed as sharply as ever against it, for the impurity 
and corruption of morals, that were the natural consequences 


of it. 


There was anciently a famous sight or play called maiuma, 
a considerable part of which diversion was to see infamous 


strumpets swim naked in the water. 


Whence learned men 


observe, it had its name: for maiwma, in the Syriac tongue, 


signifies water. 


τοὺς τύπους ἐναποθέμενοι ταῖς ψυχαῖς 
ἀπέρχονται. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄτοπον, 
ἐκείνους μὲν ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῆς ἑαυτῶν 
ψυχῆς τοσαύτην ἐπιδείκνυσθαι πρό- 
νοιαν, kal’ μνήμην ἐνδιάθετον ἔχειν 
τῶν ἐκεῖ γινομένων; ἡμᾶς δὲ, κι τ.λ. 
—Hom. 15. ad Pop. Antioch. ibid. 
p. 190. (ibid. p. 157 ¢.) To εἰς ra 
θέατρα ἀναβαίνειν πάλιν, καὶ ἵππων 
ἁμίλλας θεωρεῖν, καὶ κυβεύειν, οὐ 
δοκεῖ πλημμέλημα τοῖς πολλοῖς ἁ ὧμο- 
λογημένον εἶναι" μυρία δὲ εἰς τὸν βίον 
εἰσάγει Kaka" καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἐν τοῖς θεά- 
τροις διατριβὴ πορνείαν, ἀκολασίαν, 
καὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέλγειαν ἔτεκε. καὶ ἡ τῆς 
ἁμίλλης τῶν ἵππων θεωρία μάχας, 
λοιδορίας, “πληγὰς, ὕβρεις, ἀπεχθείας 
διηνεκεῖς ἐπήγαγε᾽ καὶ ἡ περὶ τὸ κυ- 
Βεύειν σπουδὴ βλασφημίας, ζημίας, 
ὀργὰς, λοιδορίας, μυρία ἕτερα τούτων 
δεινότερα πολλάκις εἰργάσατο. Μὴ 
τοίνυν ἁμαρτήματα φεύγωμεν μόνον, 
ἀλλὰ τὰ δοκοῦντα μὲν ἀδιάφορα εἶναι, 
κατὰ μικρὸν δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς εἰς τὰς πλημ- 
μελείας ἄγοντα ταύτας. 

57 Catech. [19.] Mystag. 1. ἢ. 4: 
[al. 6.] (p. 308 c.) Φεῦγε καὶ τὰς ἱπ- 
ποδρομίας, τὸ ἐμμανὲς θέαμα. καὶ 
ψυχὰς ἐκτραχηλίζον᾽" ταῦτα γὰρ πάν- 
τα πομπή ἐστι τοῦ Διαβόλου. 

°8 De Gubernat. ]. 6. nn. 3, 4: 5,6 
p- 197. (pp. 116, seqq. presertim 
ἢ. 6. p. 121.) Quomodo, o Christi- 
ane, post baptismum, &c. 

89 In Cod. Theod. lib. 15. tit. 6. 
de Maiuma, leg. 2. (t. 5. p. 358.) 
Spectaculum, seu Maiume letitia, 
per eandem preefecturam pretori- 
anam Orientis, provincialibus sub 
certa lege antea adempta, redditur 
leg. 1, anno Domini 396; mox ab- 


Gothofred 59 observes, and Pagi® after him, 


solute denegatur, anno 399, hac leg. 
2. Idque intra quatuor ferme an- 
norum spatium. Redditur, inquam, 
leg. 1, cum antea (ut puto a Con- 
stantio Imp. rursus a Theodosio M. 
patre, castissimo principe) prohibita 
fuisset: sub hac tamen conditione 
redditur, ut honestas et verecundia 
castis moribus perseveraret, id est, 
ut foeditas omnis et procacia ab ea 
abesset. Hoc scilicet temperamen- 
tum Arcadio clementiz titulo seu 
clementer adhibere primum visum 
fuit, anno D. 396. At enim, cum 
rebus ipsis postea comperisset, pro- 
cacem hanc licentiam et foeditatem 
ab ipsa Maiume celebritate seu 
spectaculo sejugari non posse, tri- 
ennio, et quod excurrit post, ad 
superiorum principum Christiano- 
rum ingenium rediit, ea penitus de- 
negata: leg. 2. hoc tit.: aliis vero 
ludicris et honestis artibus conces- 
sis, quibus abunde provinciales 
tristia sua consolari possent. 

60 Crit. in Baron. an. 399. ἢ. 5. 
(t. 1. p. 27.) Gothofredus in Com- 
ment. Leg. 2. Cod. Theodos., ubi 
varia habet de Maiuma, observat 
ejus mentionem non occurrere, nisi 
ab eo tempore, quo Christiani im- 
peratores exstitere, tantumque ejus 
retinende populis studium fuisse, 


contra vero tam justas ejus coércen- 


dz, mox et prohibende, iisdem im- 
peratoribus causas visas esse; ut 8 
Constantino Magno, quo imperante 
Maiumam celebratam verosimile, ad 
Arcadium, octies hac parte variatum 
fuerit, ea modo legibus permissa, 
modo iisdem vetita. 


XVL 





| 
‘ 
᾿ 
ἔ 


- 


§ 12, 13. adultery, §c. 443 


that the people were so eagerly bent and inclined to this 
obscene diversion, that though there were good reasons for 
abolishing it, yet the imperial laws, from Constantine to Arca- 
dius, varied eight times about it; sometimes allowing, and 
sometimes restraining it; till at last Arcadius, who had at first 
permitted it, revoked his license, and finally abolished it; 
allowing other sports for the diversion of the people, but deny- 
ing them this®!, as a base and unseemly spectacle. And under 
that character St. Chrysostom © and others, with their utmost 
force and vehemence, declaim against it. 

13. For the same reason they made sharp invectives against As also all 
luxury, and riot, and intemperance, not only as they were °X°°ss of 


riot and 
crimes in themselves, but as they were the avenues and inlets intemper- 


to the greater sins of uncleanness. And therefore, though they {he « pas 
did not punish every single act of drunkenness and excess with reason. 
excommunication, yet they thought it proper to bring habits 

and customs of such sins under public discipline and censure. 

It is an observation of Tertullian ®, and a very true one, ‘ that 
drunkenness and lust are two devils, combining and conspiring 
together. Bacchus and Venus are nearly allied, and too well 
agreed.’ ‘ Drunkenness,’ says one of the ancient Canons®, ‘is 

the fomenter and nurse of all vices.’ And therefore it was or- 
dered, ‘ that if any clergyman, of the lowest degree, was found 
guilty of any single act of it, he should either be suspended 
from communion for thirty days, or be subject to corporal pun- 
ishment for his offence.’ This we find decreed in the Councils 

of Agde and Vannes, as a standing rule in the French Church. 

And there goes a decree, under the name of Pope Eutychian®, 


61 Cod. Theod. lib. 15. tit.6. de 
Maiuma, leg. 2. (t.5. p. 358.) Mai- 
umam fedum atque indecorum 
spectaculum denegamus. 

62 Hom. 7. in Matth. Pp. 71. (t. 7. 
Ρ. 114 a. )....Els τὴν πηγὴν ἀπέρχη 
τὴν διαβολικὴν Kx. T. A. 

63 De Spectacul. c. το. (p. 77 ¢.) 
Veneri et Libero convenit. Duo ista 
dzmonia conspirata et conjurata in- 
ter se sunt ebrietatis et libidinis. 

64 C. Venet. c. 13. (t. 4. ae d.) 

. _Ebrietas omnium vitiorum fomes 
ac nutrix est... . Itaque [clericum } 
quem ebrium esse constiterit, aut 


triginta dierum spatio a commu- 
nione statuimus submovendum, aut 
corporali subdendum esse supplicio. 
—Conf. C. Agathens. c. 41., iisdem 
verbis. (ibid. p. 1390 b.) 

65 Decret. 9. Ut malum ebrietatis 
omnino vitetur. Ap. Crabb. t.1. p. 
180. (ap. Labb. t. 1. p. 922 e.).... 
Qui autem hoc vitare noluerit, ex- 
communicandum esse decrevimus 
usque ad congruam emendationem. 
—Vid. CC. amet 41, 42. (Cotel. 
(42, 43-] Vv. 1. p. 443 .) ᾽᾿Ἐπίσκοπος, 
ἢ speoBbrepes, ἢ διάκονος κύβοις 
σχολάζων, καὶ μέθαις, κ. τ. Δ. 


444 The great crimes, XVL. xi. 


which makes the habit of drunkenness matter of excommuni- 
cation to a layman also, till he break off the custom by refor- 
mation and amendment. But it must be owned this vice was 
sometimes so general and epidemical, that the numbers of 
transgressors made the exactness of discipline impracticable. 
St. Austin ® complains and laments that it was so in Afric in 
his time. ‘Though the Apostle had condemned three great 
and detestable vices in one place, [Rom. 13, 13.] viz. “ rioting 
and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness, strife and en- 
vying :” yet matters were come to that pass with men, that 
two of the three, drunkenness and strife, were thought tolerable 
things, whilst wantonness only was esteemed worthy of excom- 
munication; and there was some danger that in a little time 
the other two might be reputed no vices at all. For rioting and 
drunkenness was esteemed so harmless and allowable a thing, 
that men not only practised it in their own houses every day, 
but in the memorials of the holy martyrs on solemn festivals, 
and that in pretended honour to the martyrs also; which was 
a thing that every one must needs lament, who did not look 
with carnal eyes upon it.’ It is plain St. Austin thought an 
habitual course of rioting and drunkenness a crime deserving 
excommunication, as well as fornication and adultery; but yet 
in regard to the great numbers that were given to this sin, his 
advice 67 to Aurelius, the metropolitan of Afric, is, ‘ that it should 


66 Ep. 64. [al. 22.] (t. 2. p. 27f.) 
Cum enim Apostolus tria_breviter 
genera vitiorum detestanda et vi- 
tanda uno in loco posuerit, de qui- 
bus innumerabilium vitiorum ex- 
surgit seges, unum horum, quod 
secundo loco posuit, acerrime in 
ecclesia vindicatur: duo autem re- 
liqua id est primum et ultimum, 
tolerabilia videntur hominibus, at- 
que ita paullatim fieri potest, ut nec 
vitia jam putentur. Ait enim vas 
electionis, Non in comessationibus et 
ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et im- 
pudicitiis, non in contentione et dolo: 
sed induite vos Dominum Jesum 
Christum : et carnis curam ne fece- 
ritis in concupiscentiis. Horum ergo 
trium, cubilia et impudicitie tam 
magnum crimen putantur, ut nemo 
dignus non modo ecclesiastico min- 


isterio, sed ipsa etiam sacramento- 
rum communione videatur, qui se 
isto peccato maculavit. Et recte 
omnino. Sed quare solum? Co- 
messationes enim et ebrietates ita 
concesse et licite putantur, ut in 
honorem etiam beatissimorum mar- 
tyrum, non solum per dies solem- 
nes, quod ipsum quis non lugen- 
dum videat, qui hee non carnis 
oculis inspicit? sed etiam quotidie 
celebrentur. 

67 Tbid. (p. 28 f.) Non ergo as- 
pere, quantum existimo, non duri- 
ter, pon modo imperioso ista tollun- 
tur, magis docendo quam jubendo, 
magis monendo quam minando. 
Sic enim agendum est cum multi- 
tudine ; severitas autem exercenda 
est in peccata paucorum. 


§ 13, 14. adultery, §c. 445 


be cured not with asperity and roughness, nor in the imperious 
way, but by teaching rather than commanding, and by admo- 
nition rather than commination. For so we must deal with a 
multitude ; but the severity of discipline is only to be exercised 
upon sins, when the number of sinners is not very great.’ 

So that we may conclude that rioting and drunkenness was 
one of those great crimes for which men were put to do public 
penance in the church, except when the multitude and combi- 
nation of sinners made it not feasible, and obliged the Church 
to take other measures to correct it. 

14. It must also be noted upon this head, that as a preserva- And pro- 
tive of modesty and chastity, both the canon and civil law pro- setae β 
hibited men and women to go promiscuously into the same men and 
baths together. ‘Let not a woman go to wash in the same ncthen τ 
bath with men,’ says the Author of the Constitutions®*. And 
the Council of Laodicea®, ‘ Neither clergyman, nor ascetic, 
nor layman, shall wash in the same bath with women: for this 
is extremely scandalous, and culpable even among the Gen- 
tiles.’ The Council of Trullo repeats this canon word for 
word7°, and then adds, in the close; ‘If any clergyman be 
found guilty of this practice, he shall be deposed ; if a layman, 
let him be excommunicated.’ The observation made in these 
canons, ‘that this was a scandalous crime even among the 
Heathens,’ is confirmed out of the old Roman laws and writers. 
Varro?! says, ‘ the ancient baths were divided into two distinct 
buildings or apartments, one for the men and the other for the 
women to wash in.’ And the same account is given by Vitru- 
vius7?, and Charisius78, and other writers. And when the de- 


68 L.1.c.9. (Cotel. Vv. I. p. 209.) 
᾿Ανδρόγυνον γυνὴ πιστὴ μὴ over Ow. 

69 C. 30. (6.1. p. 1051 d.) Ὅτε οὐ 
δεῖ ἱερατικοὺς, ἢ κληρικοὺς, ἢ ἀσκη- 
τὰς, ἐν βαλανείῳ μετὰ γυναικῶν ἀπο- 
λούεσθαι, μηδὲ πάντα Χριστιανὸν, ἢ 
λαϊκόν᾽ αὕτη γὰρ πρώτη κατάγνωσις 
παρὰ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 

70 C. 77. (t. 6. Pp. 1175, d.) Ei δέ 
τις ἐπὶ "τούτῳ jee ie: εἰ μὲν κλη- 
ρικὸς εἴη, καθαιρείσθω" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, 
ἀφοριζέσθω. 

71 De Ling. Lat. 1. 8. (Ρ. 115.) .. 
Publice ibi concedit ubi bina essent 
conjuncta edificia lavandi causa ; 


unum ubi viri, alterum ubi mulieres 
lavarentur. 

72 De Architect. 1.5. ὁ: 10. (p. 
201.) Item est animadvertendum, 
uti caldaria muliebria viriliaque con- 
juncta et in iisdem regionibus sunt 
collocata. Sic enim efficietur, ut in 
vasaria ex hypocausto communis sit 
usus eorum utrisque.—{ Conf. Cas- 
talion. in loc. (ibid. c. 203.) citing 
Varro as above. See the preceding 
note. Ep. |] 

73 Grammat. 1.1. ap. Savar. Not. 
in Sidonium. 1. 2. Ep. 2. (p. 108. 
sub. med.) Que |[balnea], cum in- 


446 XVI. xi 


The great crimes, 


generacy of the following ages began to confound this distine- 
tion, Spartian7* says, Adrian made a law against promiscuous 
bathing. And Julius Capitolinus7> says the same of Antoninus 
Philosophus. Nay, the old Romans were so careful to preserve 
modesty in this matter, that Tully7° says, ‘They did not allow 
a son to bathe with his father, nor a son-in-law with his father- 
in-law : nature itself teaching men that there was a decency to 
be observed in making such distinctions.’ And the same thing 
is related by Valerius Maximus?7, and much commended by 
St. Ambrose78. 

Now the case standing thus even among the Heathens, it 
would have been extremely scandalous for the Christians to 
have permitted promiscuous bathing; and therefore they pro- 
hibited it by their ecclesiastical laws under the severe penalty 
of excommunication. And the imperial laws of Justinian car- 
ried the matter a little further: for among other lawful causes 
of divorce, authorizing a man to put away his wife, he allows79 
this to be one, ‘If a woman be so intemperate and luxurious as 


to go into a common bath with men.’ 
Epiphanius®° condemns it in the Jews; and 


much against it. 


valescente luxuria communia et pro- 
miscua essent, separavit Adrianus 
auctore Spartiano, &c.—Dempster. 
Paralipom. ad Rosin. Antiq. Rom. 
1.1. 6.14. (p.142 6. 3.) Jam vero 
promiscua non fuisse balnea, sed 
viros sua a mulieribus discreta se- 
parataque habuisse, notissimum, &c. 

74 Vit. Adrian. c. 19. p. 25. (int. 
Aug. Hist. Scriptor. p. 83.) Lavacra 
pro sexibus separavit. 

75 Vit. Antonin. c. 23. p. 00. 
(ibid. p. 205.) Lavacra mixta sub- 
movit. 

76 Vid. de Offic; ἐν τ, my 120. 
(al. 35.] (v.15. p. 3516.) Nostro 
quidem more cum parentibus pube- 
res filii, cum soceris generi, non la- 
vantur. Retinenda est igitur hujus 
generis verecundia, presertim na- 
tura ipsa magistra et duce. 

7 Τῷ. 2. ¢c.1. n. 7. (Antw. 1621. 
p. 48.).. Aliquamdiu nec pater cum 
filio pubere, nec socer cum genero, 
lavabatur. 

78 De Office. 1.1. ©2178. (6. a: ἢ: 
22 ἃ. n. 79.) Mos vetus et in urbe 


Private writers declaim 


Roma et in plerisque civitatibus 
fuit, ut filii puberes cum parenti- 
bus, vel generi cum soceris, non la- 
varent, ne paterne reverentiz# auc- 
toritas minueretur: licet plerique se 
et in lavacro quantum possunt te- 
gant; ne vel illic, ubi nudum totum 
est corpus, hujusmodi intecta sit 
portio. 

79 Cod. 1. 5. tit. 17. de Repudiis, 
leg. 11. (t. 4. p. 1247.) Inter culpas 
autem [viri et] uxoris constitutioni- 
bus enumeratas, et has adjicimus; si 
forte uxor....ita luxuriosa est, ut 
commune lavacrum cum viris libi- 
dinis causa habere audeat.—Novel. 
22. c. 16. ἢ. 1. (t. 5. pee 
tanta libido est, ut etiam cum viris 
voluptatis occasione lavetur:... li- 
centia datur a nobis viris mittere eis 
repudia, &c. 

80 Her. 30. Ebion. n. 7. (t. 1. p. 
131 c.) ᾿Ανδρόγυνα ἐκεῖσε λούονται. 
Κατὰ συγκυρίαν δὲ γυνή τις ἐλευθέρα 
ἔτυχεν ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ, κάλλει διαπρέ- 
πουσα εὐφορμίας" καὶ ὁ νεώτερος θελ- 
χθεὶς τῷ ἔθει τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκολασίας, 


§ 14. 


adultery, §c. 44.7 


Cyprian 8! not only censures this, but many other acts of im- 
modesty in virgins, as painting, and over-nice dressing, and 
appearing unveiled, against which also Tertullian has a whole 
Discourse ®2, with some other indications of a loose and un- 
guarded mind, which need not here be particularly mentioned 
or further pursued. 

I purposely also pass over the scandalous practice of some, 
who entertained their agapete, or love-sisters, as they called 
them, with professions of the strictest innocence and virtue ; 
because I have formerly had occasion to show®* with what se- 
verity the ancient rules condemned this as a most suspicious 
and intolerable practice, and perfectly against the laws of the 
Gospel, which oblige men not only to regard the preservation 
of their innocence, but their good name; “ to mind things that 
are honest,” that is, becoming and honourable, “and of good 
report ;” “ to provide for honest things not only in the sight of 
God, but also in the sight of men;” and “to abstain from all 
appearance of evil.” In regard to which precepts, the ancient 
rules not only censured open fornication and adultery, but all 
such indecent actions as had any tendency towards them, or 
were justly liable to suspicion, and gave occasion to the adver- 
sary to speak reproachfully of that holy religion, the honour of 
which Christians were obliged to maintain in all purity, as well 
in word as outward conversation ; avoiding this, that no one 
should blame them, and managing their whole deportment with 
innocence and prudence, to answer those great precepts of the 
Gospel, ““ Give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gen- 
tiles, nor to the Church of God:” [1 Cor. 10, 32.] and “ Let 


ὃ “Ν > ~ ΄ ε a 
τῶν εν τῷ aept, παρενέτριψεν αὐτου 


tant et invitant? Viderit, inquis, 
τὴν πλευρὰν TH πλευρᾷ τοῦ γυναίου" 


qua illuc mente quis veniat: mihi 


ἡ δὲ ἑαυτὴν ἐσφραγίσατο εἰς ὄνομα 
Χριστοῦ, οἷα δὲ Χριστιανὴ οὖσα, ἢ 
οὔτε ἀνάγκη ἦν παρανομεῖν, καὶ ἀν- 
δρογύνεςς λούεσθαι. 

81 De Habitu Virginum, p. 100, 
&e. (p. 73.) Quid vero, que pro- 
miscuas balneas adeunt, que, oculis 
ad libidinem curiosis, pudori ac pu- 
dicitie corpora dicata prostituunt, 
que cum viros atque ἃ viris nude 
vident turpiter ac videntur, nonne 
ipse illecebram vitiis prestant ὃ 
nonne ad corruptelam et injuriam 
suam desideria presentium solici- 


tantum reficiendi corpusculi cura 
est et lavandi. Non te purgat ista 
defensio, nec lasciviz et petulantie 
crimen excusat. Sordidat lavatio 
ista, non abluit; nec emundat mem- 
bra, sed maculat. Impudice tu ne- 
minem conspicis, sed ipsa conspi- 
ceris impudice: oculos tuos turpi 
oblectatione non polluis; sed, dum 
oblectas alios, ipsa pollueris. 

82 De Virginibus Velandis. (pp. 
172 a, seqq.) 

8 B. 6. ch. 2. 8. 13. v. 2. p. 224. 


448 The great crimes, AVE. a8 


your light so shine before men, that they may see your good 
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” [Matth. 


S168] 


an 15. For the same reason they prohibited all promiscuous 

miscuous eee 3 

and lasci- and lascivious dancing of men and women together. The 

rags ein Council of Laodicea forbids it under the name of BadAtfew*4, 
? 7, . . . . 

ton songs, which some interpret playing on cymbals or other musical 


Rice instruments, but more commonly it is understood by learned 


ΠΊΘ 55. as a prohibition of wanton dancing at marriage feasts, 
against which there are several other canons of the ancient 
Councils, and severe invectives of the Fathers. The third 
Council of Toledo 56 forbids it under the name of ballimathie, 
which they interpret wanton dances, joing them with ‘ lasci- 
vious songs,’ the use of which they complain of 57 ‘as an irreli- 
gious custom prevailing in Spain among the common people on 
the solemn festivals ;’ which they order ‘ to be corrected both 


by the ecclesiastical and secular judges.’ 


Agde*® forbids the clergy to 


$4 C. 53. (t. 1. p. 1505 c.) Ὅτε ov 
δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς εἰς γάμους ἀπερχομέ- 
νους βαλλίζειν ἢ ὀρχεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ σεμ- 
νῶς δειπνεῖν ἢ ἀριστᾷν, ὡς πρέπει 
Χριστιανοῖς. 

85 Suicer. Thes. Eccles. voc. Βαλ- 
λίζειν. (t. τ. p.620.) Βαλλίζειν pro- 
prie est jacere, vel jactare. Hine 
βαλλίζειν χεῖρας et βάλλειν χεῖρας, 
manus jactare, quod saltantes fa- 
ciunt. Manus enim jactare, saltare 
est. Ovidius: Et faciles jactant ad 
sua verba manus.—Rivetus in De- 
calog. p. 338. (t.1. pp. 1407-1409.) 
De Saltationibus et Choreis.—Stuc- 
kius, Antiquit. Convival. 1. 3. c. 21. 
(t. 1. p. 608.) Baddiew . . . tripudiare 
pedibus plaudere, tripudiantium more 
saltare significat, κωμάζειν, καὶ xo- 
ρεύειν, &e. 

86 In Edicto Regis Reccaredi. 
(juxt. Ed. Crabb. t. 2. p. 172.) Quod 
ballimathiz et turpia cantica prohi- 
benda sunt a sanctorum solemniis. 
[Labbe and Cossart (tit. 23. t. 5. p. 
1009 b.) read vallemantie et turpes 
cantici. See ibid. in the margin.— 
See also Du Fresne, Med. et Infim. 
Latinit. (Paris. 1733. t. 6. col. 1405.) 
Vallemacia, saltatio. Vide ballare. 
(ibid. t. 1. col. 947.) Ballare, vallare, 


The Council of 
be present at such marriages, 


saltare, choreas ducere, &c.—Ibid. 
(col.948.)invoce, Ballimathia, Cym- 
bala, acetabula sunt, &c.... Titulus 
canonis 23. C. Toletani 111. Quod 
ballimathie, &c. Alii editores ha- 
bent ballimanthiz, quasi indicantur 
divinationes, que per saltationes 
fiunt. At in ipso canone saltationes 
tantum et turpia cantica vetantur in 
sanctorum solemnitatibus; ut in C. 
Romano sub Eugenio II. & PP. 
Sed legendum videtur ballismatia 
ex Greco βαλλισμάτιον : nam in 
Glossis βαλλίζειν est ballare: Ba- 
λισμα seu βάλλισμα, gressus, pas de 
dance, &c. Ev. | 

87 Ibid. c.23. juxt. Crabb. p.171. 
(Labb. t.5. p. 2014 [corrige, 1014. ] 
e.) Irreligiosa consuetudo est, quam 
vulgus per sanctorum solemnitates 
agere consuevit. Populi, qui debent 
officia divina attendere, saltationibus 
turpibus invigilant: cantica non so- 
lum mala canentes [8]. canticis; non 
solum sibi nocentes], sed et religio- 
sorum officiis perstrepentes. Hoc 
etenim ut ab omni Hispania depel- 
latur sacerdotum et judicum a con- 
cilio sancto curiz committitur. 

88 C. 39. (t.4. p. 1300 ἃ.) Nec his 
ceetibus misceantur, ubi amatoria 


§ 15. 


adultery, Sc. 449 


where obscene love-songs were sung. or obscene motions of the 
body were used in dancing. And by another canon’ ‘if 
they use any scurrility or filthy jesting themselves, they are to 
be removed from their office. The like canons occur in the 
Council of Lerida®® and some others,*forbidding to sing or 
dance at marriages, but feast with modesty and gravity as 
becomes Christians. St. Ambrose excellently describes the 
immodesty of this sort of dancing used by drunken women: 
* They lead up dances in the streets,’ says Π6 91, ‘ unbecoming 
men in the sight of intemperate youths, tossing their hair, 
dragging their garments flying open, with their arms un- 
covered, clapping their hands, dancing with their feet, loud 
and clamorous in their voices, irritating and provoking youth- 
ful lusts by their theatrical motions, their petulant eyes, 


and unseemly antics and fooleries. 


Meanwhile a crowd of 


youth stands gazing upon them, and so it is a miserable spec- 


tacle indeed.’ 


St. Chrysostom 93 has abundance to the same purpose, parti- 


cantantur et turpia, aut obscceni mo- 
tus corporis choreis et saltationibus 
[8]. corporum choris et saltibus] ef- 
feruntur, &c. 

89 C. 70. (ibid. 1394 c.) Clericum 
scurrilem et verbis turpibus jocula- 
torem ab officio retrahendum. 


9 Ap. Crabb. t. 1. p. 1031. [De- 
cretum 2. desumptum ex 1.9. Libri 
Sexdecim Librorum, c. 4.] (ap. 


Labb. ibid. p. 1619 [corrige, 6367] 
b.) Quod non oporteat Christianos 
euntes ad nuptias plaudere vel sal- 
tare, &c 

9 De Elia et Jejuniis, c. 18. (t. 1. 
(Ρ. 555 d. n.66.) Ll in plateis in- 
verecundos viris sub conspectu ado- 
lescentulorum intemperantium cho- 
ros ducunt, jactantes comam, tra- 
hentes tunicas, scissz amictus, nude 
lacertos, plaudentes manibus, sal- 
tantes pedibus, personantes voci- 
bus, &c. 

92 Hom. 48. in Gen. p. 680. (t. 4. 
p. 490 ἃ.) ᾿Ενταῦθα σκόπει μοι, aya- 
πητὲ, πῶς οὐδαμοῦ τὰ περιττὰ ταῦτα 
καὶ ἀνόνητα, οὐδαμοῦ πομπὴ διαβο- 
Axi, οὐδαμοῦ “κύμβαλα καὶ αὐλοὶ καὶ 
χορείαι, καὶ τὰ σατανικὰ ἐκεῖνα Sedat of 
πόσια, καὶ αἱ i λοιδορίαι ai πάσης ἀσχη- 
μοσύνης γέμουσαι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα σεμ- 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


νότης, πᾶσα σοφία, πᾶσα ἐπιείκεια. 
Εἰσῆλθε δέ, φησιν, ᾿Ισαὰκ εἰς τὸν 
οἶκον τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλαβε τὴν 
Ρεβέκκαν, .. . Ταύτην μιμείσθωσαν αἱ 
γυναῖκες" τοῦτον ζηλούτωσαν ἄνδρες" 
οὕτω τὰς νύμφας ἀγαγέσθαι σπουδα- 
ζέτωσαν. Tivos yap ἕνεκεν, εἶπέ μοι, 
ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐκ προοιμίων “κηλίδων 
πληρῶσαι συγχωρεῖς τῆς κόρης τὰς 
ἀκοὰς διὰ τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἀσμάτων, διὰ 
τῆς ἀκαίρου πόμπης ἐκείνης, κ. τ. X.— 
Hom. 56. in Gen. p. 740. (ibid. ἘΣ 
539 6.) Εἶδες τὸ παλαιὸν, μεθ᾽ ὅσης 
σεμνότητος τοὺς γάμους ἐπετέλουν" 
ἀκούσατε οἱ περὶ τὰς σατανικὰς πομ- 
πὰς ἐπτοημένοι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν 

προοιμίων τὰ σεμνὰ τοῦ γάμου καται- 
σχύνοντες. Μήπου αὐλοί; μήπου κύμ- 
Bada; μήπου χορείαι σατανικαί; K.T.r. 
— Hom. 49.in Matth. p. 436. { Bened. 
48. al. 49.| ((. 7. p- 497 Ὁ.) ᾿Ακούσατε 
τῶν παρθένων, μᾶλλον͵ δὲ καὶ τῶν 
γεγαμημένων, ὅσαι ἐν τοῖς ἑτέρων γά- 
μοις τοιαῦτα ἀσχημονεῖν καταδέχεσθε, 
ἁλλόμεναι καὶ πηδῶσαι, καὶ τὴν κοινὴν 
καταισχύνουσαι φύσιν. ᾿Ακούσατε καὶ 
ἄνδρες, ὅσοι τὰ πολυτελῆ συμπόσια 
καὶ μέθης γέμοντα διώκετε" καὶ δείσατε 
τοῦ Διαβόλου τὸ βάραθρον, κ. τ.λ.--- 
Hom. 12. in Col. p. 1403. (t. 11. p. 
418 a. & p. 419 b.) Πάντως ἄσχημον 


bl 


450 The great crimes, XVI. xi 


cularly in one of his Homilies he declaims against it as one 
of those pomps of Satan which men renounced in their bap- 
tism. He says, ‘The devil is present at such a time, being 
called thither by the songs of harlots, and obscene words, and 
diabolical pomps used* upon such occasions.’ And in another 
Homily, speaking of the dancing of Herodias’s daughter, he 
says, ‘Christians now do not deliver up half a kingdom, nor 
another man’s head, but their own souls to inevitable destruc- 
tion.’ By which it appears that these dancings were causes of 
great corruption, being mixed with ribaldry and lascivious 
songs and wanton gestures, which are incentives to impurity, 
and wholly unhinge the frame of the Christian temper: for 
which reason the Ancients are so frequent and copious and 
severe in their invectives against them. 


All pro- 16. Some canons also severely condemn the promiscuous use 
miscuous . 4 - : τῆς 
σε δΐηρ. of habits, or men and women interchanging their apparel pecu- 


liarly appropriated to their different sexes. Eustathius taught 
his she-disciples to wear the habit of men, under the pretence 
of religion; and cut off their hair upon the like superstitious 
reason. But the Council of Gangra condemned both these 
practices as great irregularities, confounding the order of 
nature, and laid the heavy censure of anathema upon them. ῃ 
‘If any woman,’ says one canon, ‘ under pretence of leading 


kal αἰσχρὸν, μαλακοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ ὁρ- 


93 Hom. 47. in Julian. Mart. t. 1. 
χουμένους καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν πομπὴν τὴν 


Ρ. 613. (t.2. p.678 6.) Ὅτι χοροὶ 


σατανικὴν ἐπεισάγειν τῇ olkia.... Av 
τοίνυν, φησὶ, μήτε παρθένοι ὁ ὀρχῶνται, 
μήτε γεγαμημέναι, τίς ὀρχήσεται ; Μη- 
δείς" ποία γὰρ ὀρχήσεως ἀνάγκη : : ἐν 
τοῖς τῶν Ἑλλήνων “μυστηρίοις αἱ ὀρ- 
χήσεις" ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἡμετέροις σιγὴ καὶ 
εὐκοσμία, αἰδὼς καὶ καταστολή.--- 
Hom. 19. de Scortat. t.5. p. 269. 
(t.3. p.195 a.) Taos δὲ πορνείας 
ἀναιρετικὸν φάρμακον. Μὴ τοίνυν αὐ- 
τὸν ἀτιμάζωμεν ταῖς διαβολικαῖς πομ- 
mats... Av τοίνυν τὸν Διάβολον ἀπε- 
λάσῃς, ἂν τὰ πορνικὰ ἄσματα, καὶ τὰ 
κεκλασμένα. μέλη, καὶ τὰς ἀτάκτους 
χορείας, καὶ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ῥήματα, καὶ 
τὴν διαβολικὴν πομπὴν, καὶ τὸν θόρυ- 
βον, καὶ τὸν κεχυμένον “γέλωτα, καὶ 
τὴν λοιπὴν ἐξελάσῃς ἀσχημοσύνην, 
εἰσαγάγῃς δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους Χριστοῦ 
δούλους, καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς. δι’ αὐτῶν πα- 
ρέσται πάντως μετὰ τῆς μητρὸς καὶ 


τῶν ἀδελφῶν. 


ἀνδρῶν αὔριον τὸ προάστειον καταλαμ- 
βάνουσιν" ἡ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων ὄψις καὶ 
τὸν βουλόμενον σωφρονεῖν ἄ ἄκοντα ὑπ- 
εξάγει πολλάκις πρὸς τὴν τῆς αὐτῆς 
ἀσχημοσύνης μίμησιν" καὶ μάλιστα 
ὅταν καὶ ὁ “Διάβολος μέσος ἐκείνοις 
παρῇ" καὶ γὰρ πάρεστιν ὑπὸ τῶν πορ- 
νικῶν ἀσμάτων, v ὑπὸ τῶν αἰσχρῶν ῥη- 
μάτων, ὑπὸ τῆς δαιμονικῆς πομπῆς 
xadovpevos.—Hom. 23. de Novilu- 
niis. t.1. p.296. [Bened. in Kalend. ] 
(t. 1. p.698 c.) Αἱ yap διαβολικαὶ 
παννυχίδες, αἱ γινόμεναι τήμερον, καὶ 
τὰ σκώμματα, καὶ αἱ λοιδορίαι, καὶ αἱ 
χορείαι αἱ νυκτεριναὶ, καὶ ὴ καταγέλα- 
στος αὕτη κωμῳδία, παντὸς πολεμίου 
ἰχαλεπώτερον, en. δ᾽ Sav. omitting 
μᾶλλον] τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν [μᾶλλον] 
ἐξηχμαλώτισε. 

98. (014. {Ὁ| υτί; 410 6.) Εἴ τις 
γυνὴ διὰ νομιζομένην ἄσκησιν μετα- 
βάλλοιτο ἀμφίασμα, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰω- 


ὃ τό. adultery, Sc. 451 


an ascetic life, change her apparel, and instead of the accus- 
tomed habit of women take that of men, let her be anathema.’ 
And another, ‘If any woman upon the account of an ascetic 
life cut off her hair, which God has given her as a memorial of 
subjection, let her be anathema, as one that annuls the decree 
of subjection.’ The foundation of this canon was the order 
given by St. Paul, (1 Cor. 11, 5-16.) “ That a woman should 
not be shorn or shaven.” And the foundation of the former 
canon was the rule given by God to the Jews, (Deut. 22, 5.) 
“ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, 
neither shalla man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do 
so are abomination to the Lord thy God.” Which the ancient 
writers, Cyprian%, Tertullian9’, and many others, under- 
stand simply and universally of men and women interchanging 
habits, as was usually done in stage plays, which they con- 
demned for this reason as for many others. Some modern 
interpreters 29, after Lyra! and Maimonides?, think there was 


θότος γυναικείου ἀμφιάσματος ἀν- 
δρεῖον ἀναλάβοι, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

95 C. 17. (ibid. 424 b.) Εἴ τις 
γυναικῶν διὰ τὴν νομιζομένην ἄσκησιν 
ἀποκείροιτο τὰς κόμας, ἃς ἔδωκεν ὁ 
Θεὸς εἰς ὑπόμνησιν τῆς ὑποταγῆς, ὡς 
ἀναλύουσα τὸ πρόσταγμα τῆς ὑὕποτα- 
γῆς, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

96 ΒΡ. 62. [4]. 2.1 ad Eucratium. 
(p. 171.) Nam cum in Lege prohibe- 
anturviri induere muliebrem vestem, 
et maledicti ejusmodi judicentur ; 
quanto majoris est criminis, non 
tantum muliebria indumenta acci- 
pere; sed et gestus quoque turpes 
et molles et muliebres magisterio 
impudice artis exprimere. 

7 De Spectac. c. 23. (p.82d.)... 
Cum in Lege prescribit maledictum 
esse qui muliebribus vestietur, quid 
de pantomimo judicabit, qui etiam 
muliebribus curatur ? 

98. See Prynne’s Histriomastix, 
act. 5. scen. 6. (p. 178 and onwards.) 
The third thing considerable, &c. 

9 Spencer, de Legib. Hebr. 1. 2. 
6. 11. fal. 29.) n.1. (t.1. p.523.) 
Sentiunt alii, lege hac de sexus utri- 
usque vestitu lata, Deum ritum ali- 
quem Zabiorum religione sacrum 
vetuisse. Hi Maimonidem ducem 
sequuntur, qui sic legem explicat, 


quasi cultus idololatricus et numinis 
alicujus (maris et foeminz) sacra, 
magis quam ipsa vestium commuta- 
tio vel sexus dissimulatio, hic prohi- 
beretur. Auctoris ipsius verba, La- 
tine reddita, sic sonant: Invenies, 
eic. (See n.2, following.) Huic opini- 
oni assensum prebeo. 

1 In Deut. 22. (t. 1. p.1596. n. 4.) 
Non induetur mulier veste virili. 
Quod exponunt doctores aliqui, et 
bene ut credo, quod hoc intelligitur 
de armis, quibus viri utuntur. Unde 
in Hebreo habetur: Non erit vas 
viri super mulierem. Et accipitur 
hic vas, ut alibi in Scriptura, pro 
armatura; nam 1 Reg. 20. dicitur 
de Jonatha, quod tradidit puero arma 
sua. In Hebreo habetur 0°92 che- 
lem, id est, Vasa sua. Prohibetur 
autem hic, quod mulier non portet 
arma viri: tum quia est indecens 
mulieri et praesumptuosum: tum 
quia pro tune erat superstitiosum, 
quia gentiles mulieres in sacris Mar- 
tis portabant arma viri: et in sacris 
Veneris viri portabant ornamenta 
mulierum et instrumenta earum, ut- 
pote colum, fusum, et similia. 

2 More Nevochim, patt. 3. c.37.(p. 
447-) Sic eadem causa subest in illo, 
quod dicitur, Ne mulier induat ves- 


Gg2 


452 XVI. xi. 
a further design in this precept, to prohibit the idolatry of the 
ancient Zabii, in whose magical books it was commanded that 
men should put on the women’s painted garments, when they 
stood to worship before the star of Venus; and that women 
should put on the men’s warlike habit and instruments, when 
they appeared before the star of Mars. But, as the ancient 
Christian writers were not acquainted with this interpretation, 
we have reason to believe they took the rule in the common 
and vulgar sense, as an universal prohibition of men and 
women interchanging habits in all cases whatsoever : it being 
‘a thing against the light of nature and the laws of reason,’ as 
Diogenes Laertius? words it in the Life of Plato, ‘ for any one 
to walk naked in public, or for a man to wear the woman’s 
clothing. And for this reason the Ancients prohibited it as 
an indecent and shameful thing, and as ministering occasion to 
uncleanness, even when it was used under pretence of greater 
strictness in religion. 


The great crimes, 


And oar 17. And for the same reason the ancient Council of Eliberis# 
Bi incr: forbad women to keep private vigils or night-watches in the 
noctations dormitories or churches; because often, under pretence of 
of women : : 

inchurches, prayer and colour of devotion, secret wickedness had been 
under pre- committed by them. This seems to be the most rational ac- 
tence of de- 

votion. 


count that can be given of the meaning and reason of this 
canon, that it was intended to cut off the occasion of lewdness 
and uncleanness, however artfully disguised under the mask of 
greater strictness in religion; there being nothing that could 
reflect more dishonour on the Christian name than the allowing 
such opportunities of sin, under the feigned pretence of piety 
and devotion, in their churches. 


timenta viri, etc. Invenies enim in 
libro 012214 precipi, ut mulier [leg. 
vir] gestet vestimentum muliebre 
coloratum, quando stat coram stella 
Veneris: similiter, ut mulier induat 


ἔθη γενόμενος, οὗτος ἄγραφος καλεῖται" 
οἷον, τὸ μὴ γυμνὸν πορεύεσθαι εἰς τὴν 
ἀγορὰν, μηδὲ γυναικεῖον ἱμάτιον περι- 
βάλλεσθαι: ταῦτα γὰρ οὐδεὶς νόμος 
κωλύει, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐ πράττομεν, διὰ 


loricam et arma bellica, quando stat 
coram stella Martis. 

3 L. 3. Vit. Platon. p. 131. (p- 89 
6. 6.) Νόμου διαιρέσεις δύο' ὁ μὲν 
γὰρ αὐτοῦ, γεγραμμένος" ὁ δὲ, ἄγρα- 
hos’ ᾧ μὲν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι πολιτευό- 
μεθα, γεγραμμένος ἐστίν ὁ δὲ κατὰ 


τὸ ἀγράφῳ νόμῳ κωλύεσθαι. 

4 C.35. (t.1. p.974 d.) Placuit 
prohiberi, ne foeminz in ccemeterio 
pervigilent ; eo quod spe sub ob- 
tentu orationis latenter scelera com- 
mittant. 


theft, fraud, δ᾽ 6. 453 


09. ἶ I. 


CHAP. XII. 


Of great transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, theft, 
oppression, usury, perverting of justice, fraud and deceit in 
trust and traffic, §c. 


1. Tue design of the Eighth Commandment is to secure Of those 
: - - : - _ who taught 

men in the quiet possession of their own rights and properties, the doc- 
or whatever they have a just title to by the laws of God and trine of re- 
the community where they dwell. And, therefore as many ook 
ways as these rights may be invaded or impaired, so many pebninik. 
ways there are of committing robbery and transgressing this 
command. 

There were in the ancient Church some heretics, who, under 
pretence of greater heights in religion, would allow no men to 
possess any thing as their own right and property in this 
world; but obliged all men to renounce their title to every 
thing, and to have all things in common; pronouncing a pe- 
remptory sentence against all rich men, that unless they gave 
up their possessions, and forsook all that they enjoyed, they 
could not enter into the kingdom of heaven. These men called 
themselves Apotactici, from renouncing the world; and Apo- 
stolici, from their pretended imitation of the Apostles; and 
Encratite, from their ostentation of temperance and absti- 
nence above other men. St. Austin! says, they would receive 
none into their communion that lived in the conjugal state, or 
that possessed any thing as their property in this world; they 
separated from the Church upon this account, and would allow 
no man to have any hope of salvation, that did not practise as 
they did; and therefore the Church condemned them as here- 
tics for laying such a doctrinal necessity upon these things, 
which were left to every man’s liberty in practice. The Eu- 
stathians maintained the same doctrine, but the Council of 
Gangra? condemned it as heretical, and anathematized the 


1 De Heres. c. 40. (t. 8. p. 11 6.) 
Apostolici, qui se isto nomine arro- 
gantissime vocayerunt, eo quod in 
suam communionem non reciperent 
utentes conjugibus et res proprias 
possidentes. Sed ideo isti heretici 
sunt, quoniam, se ab ecclesia sepa- 
rantes, nullam spem putant eos ha- 


bere, qui utuntur his rebus, quibus 
ipsi carent. Encratitis isti similes 
sunt, nam et Apotactite appellantur. 
—Conf. Epiphan. Her. 61, Apostol. 
n. 4. (t. I. p. 508 ἃ.) , 

2 In Prefat. (t. 2. pp. 413 ¢ 
seqq.) ᾿Επείδη, κ. τ. A. 


454 The great crimes, XVI. xii. 


authors and defenders of it. So that this was a general sort 
of invasion of the rights and properties of mankind, robbing 
them of every thing in an unusual and extraordinary way, not 
by any open violence or secret stealth, but by turning religion 
into an art, and inducing men to rob themselves of every thing 
under pretence of piety and greater heights of devotion. The 
factors and agents in this cause seem not to have had any 
design to enrich themselves, but to make all men poor, and 
bring them to a level, and lay all things common: which was 
such a scandalous representation of the Christian religion in 
the eyes of the Heathen, that the Fathers thought they could 
not be too severe upon it, however it was coloured over with 
the varnish and disguise of holiness, pretending a great con- 
tempt of the world, and a divine and heavenly temper. As 
therefore they condemned the doctrine for heretical, so they 
never failed to pursue the abettors of it with the utmost severity 
of ecclesiastical censure. And the imperial laws? concurred 
with them subjecting these Apotactites, or Renouncers, to all 
the civil penalties that were imposed upon heretics in all other 
cases, except that of confiscation of goods, which signified 
nothing to those whose very crime consisted in a perverse way 
of renunciation of all things, which left them nothing to 
forfeit. ‘ 

2. Next to this general sort of robbery, the laws set a par- 
ticular mark upon that which is commonly called plagiary or 
manstealing. The old Roman law condemned such as were 
guilty of it, either in a pecuniary mulct, or sent them to the 
mines. But Constantine thought this was not a sufficient 
punishment for the crime, and therefore he added to it, and 


Of plagiary 
or man- 
stealing. 


3 Vid. Cod. Theod. 1. τό. tit. 5. 
de Hereticis, leg. 7. sect. ult. (t. 
6. p.121.) Nec se sub simulatione 
fallaciz eorum scilicet nominum, 
quibus plerique, ut cognovimus, 
probate fidei et propositi castioris 
dici ac signari volent, maligna fraude 
defendant; cum przsertim nonnulli 
ex his Encratitas, Apotactitas, Hy- 
droparastatas, vel Saccophoros no- 
minari se velint, et varietate nomi- 
num diversorum velut religiose pro- 
fessionis officia mentiantur. Eos 


enim omnes convenit, non profes- 
sione defendi nominum, sed nota- 
biles atque execrandos haberi sce- 
lere sectarum.—lIbid. leg. τα. (p. 
126.) Omnes omnino, quoscunque 
diversarum heresium error exagitat, 
id est, Eunomiani, Ariani, Mace- 
doniani, Pheumatomachi, Manichei, 
Encratitee, Apotactitee, Saccophori, 
Hydroparastate, nullis circulis coé- 
ant, nullam colligant multitudinem, 
etc. 


᾿ ὃ. 5,3. theft, fraud, &c. 455 


made it capital‘, ordering ‘ every such criminal to be thrown 
to the wild beasts in the theatre, and, if they were likely to 
escape with their lives thence, to be put to death with the sword.’ 
The ecclesiastical laws appoint no particular punishment for 
this crime : but it being of the same nature with murder in the 
law of God, it may be supposed that the penance of murderers 
was inflicted on those that were found guilty of it. 

3. I take no notice here of sacrilege, because, though that be Of mali- 
a species of theft, yet the punishment of that has been con- ie 
sidered under another title 5. The remaining sorts of injustice 
may be summed up under these four heads :—1. Malicious in- 
justice. 2. Simple theft. 3. Open violence and oppression. 
4. Fraud and deceit. 

Malicious injustice is doing hurt and prejudice to our neigh- 
bour in his goods out of pure hatred and ill-will, when we can 
do ourselves no benefit or kindness by it. As when men set 
houses or stacks of corn on fire out of malice and revenge to 
their neighbours, or poison or kill their cattle, or do them any 
the like injury in their goods, without reaping any advantage 
from it, but only gratifying a spiteful and revengeful temper. 
The old Roman law adjudges all such to be guilty of capital 
crimes, and particularly those whom they term incendiaries ©, 
who set towns on fire, either out of enmity, or to make plunder 
and prey of them: which sort of criminals were by way of just 
retaliation often sentenced to be burnt alive. The ecclesiastical 
Code of the ancient Church has no particular laws against 
such?7; but as their crimes were often a complication of many 


4 Cod. Theod. 1.9. tit. 18. ad Legem 
Fabiam de Plagiariis, leg. 1. (t. 3. p. 
154.) Plagiarii, qui viventium filiorum 
miserandas infligunt parentibus or- 
bitates, metalli poeena, cum ceteris 
ante cognitis suppliciis tenebantur. 
Si quis tamen ejusmodi reus fuerit 
oblatus, posteaquam super crimine 
patuerit, servus quidem vel libertate 
donatus, bestiis primo quoque mu- 
nere objiciatur. Liber autem sub 
hac forma in ludum detur gladiato- 
rium, ut, antequam aliquid faciat, 
quo se defendere possit, gladio con- 
sumatur. Eos autem, qui pro hoc 
crimine jam in metallum dati sunt, 
nunquam revocari precipimus. 


5 Ch. 6. ss. 23-27. pp. 307-318. 

6 Digest. 1. 48. tit. 19. de Penis, 
leg. 28. n.12. (t. 3. p. 1554.) In- 
cendiarii capite puniuntur, qui ob 
inimicitias, vel praede causa incen- 
derint intra oppidum, et plerumque 
vivi exuruntur. 

7 The first ecclesiastical laws a- 
gainst incendiaries I have met with, 
are the Decrees of Eugenius II. an. 
824. ὃ. 9. (CC. t. 7. p. 1542,) In- 
novamus ut si quis pro vindicta vel 
odio ignem apposuerit, vel apponi 
fecerit, non absolvatur, nisi damno, 
cui intulerit, secundum facultatem 
suam resarcito, juret se ulterius ig- 
nem non appositurum: et pceni- 


456 


The great crimes, XVI. χι, 


great sins; enmity and malice and theft and murder com- 
monly concurring in incendiaries; so it may be presumed their 
punishment and penance was assigned according to the nature 
and quality of the several offences, which made up this com- 
pound vice, than which few can be conceived more heinous, 
because it has in it so much of the pure malicious and diabolical 
temper. 

4. Simple theft was reckoned among the great crimes which 
brought men under public penance, and therefore there is the 
more reason to conclude it of those complicated crimes, St. 
Austin § frequently, in distinguishing between great and small 
sins, puts theft into the first class of hemous crimes, for which 
men were to doa more formal penance in the church. And 
among St. Basil’s Canons there is one? that particularly speci- 
fies the time of penance: ‘The thief, if he discover himself, 
shall do one year’s penance; if he be discovered by others, two: 
half the time he shall be a prostrator, the other half a co- 
stander.’ Only St. Austin!© intimates, there were some cir- 
cumstances in which they were forced to bear with this as well 


Of simple 
theft. 


as other sins: 


he means, when some insuperable difficulties or 


danger made it either impossible, or unadyisable, to put the 
discipline of the Church strictly in execution against them. 


tentia ei detur, ut Hierosolymis, aut 
in Hispania, in servitio Dei, per an- 
num peeniteat—Also Pope Gre- 
gory’s Decretals, 1. 5. tit. 17. (Corp. 
Jur. Canon. t. 2. p. 1725.) De Rap- 
toribus et Incendiariis et Violatori- 
bus Ecclesiarum. 

8 Tractat. 12. in Ioan. t. 9. p. 47. 
(t. 3. part 2. p. 390 c.) In dilectione 
autem ejus et in misericordia ejus 
qui ambulat, etiam liberatus ab illis 
lethalibus et grandibus _peccatis, 
qualia sunt facinora, homicidia, fur- 
ta, adulteria, propter illa, que mi- 
nuta videntur esse peccata lingue, 
aut cogitationum, etc.—Tractat. =e 
in Eund. p. 126. (ibid. p Pp: 575 a.).. 
Apostolus Paulus, quando elegit or- 
dinandos vel presbyteros vel diaco- 
nos, et quicunque ordinandus est 
ad preposituram ecclesiz, non ait, 
Si quis sine peccato est: hoc enim 
si diceret, omnis homo reprobaretur, 
nullus ordinaretur: sed ait, Si quis 
sine crimine est, sicuti est homici- 


dium, adulterium, aliqua immundi- 
tia fornicationis, furtum, fraus, sa- 
crilegium, et cetera hujusmodi.— 
Conf. Hom. 27. ex 50. t. 10. p. 177. 
[al. Serm. 352. c. 3.| (t. 5. p. 13970 

g.) Grave vulnus est: sduiteriuns 
Fite commissum est, forte homici-~ 
dium, forte aliqued sacrilegium, &c. 
[Simple theft appears not to be dis- 
tinctly mentioned. Ep. ] 

9 C. 61. (Oper. Basil. Ep. 217. 
Canonic. Tert.] (CC. t. 2. p. 1749 c.) 
Ὃ κλέψας, εἰ μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μετα- 
μεληθεὶς κατηγορήσει ἑαυτοῦ, ἐνιαυτὸν 
κωλυθήσεται. μόνον (al. μόνης] τῆς 
κοινωνίας τῶν ἁγιασμάτων" εἰ δὲ ἐ- 
λεγχθείη, ἐν δυσὶν ἔ ἔτεσιν" μερισθή- 
σεται δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ χρόνος εἰς ὑπόπτω- 
σιν, καὶ σύστασιν, καὶ τότε ἀξιούσθω 
τῆς κοινωνίας. 

10 Ep. 54. fal. 153. c. 6.) ad 
Macedon. p. 95. (t. 2. p. 532 f.) 
Aliquando etiam, si res magis cu- 
sii non impedit, sancti altaris 
communione privamus. 


—«~§ 4, 5. theft, fraud, Se. 457 


5. Under this head they reckoned such as detained any lost Of detain- 

goods, which they found, from the true proprietor when he eae 
could lay a just claim to them. St. Austin?! expressly con- aston 
demns this as manifest robbery: ‘ If thou hast found any thing 
and not restored it, thou art guilty of robbing the true owner. 
He that denies what he finds of another man’s would take it 
from him if he could. In this case God examines the heart, 
and not the hands.’ Origen 12 says the same; ‘that not to 
restore what a man finds, is equal to robbery ; however some 
had the vanity to think there was no sin in it, and were ready 
to ask, to whom should I restore it, seeing God has put it into 
my hands? The old Roman laws were much more equitable 
than the consciences of such; for they reckon it theft to 
detain what a man finds, even when they know not who is the 
true owner of it. In which case 19 they direct him to put up a 
libel of inquiry after the proprietor, and when he is found to 
take of him what they call εὕρετρα, and μήνυτρα, and σῶστρα, 
a reward for finding and saving what was lost: though this 
they rather account a dishonourable and scandalous demand, if 
precisely exacted. 

St. Austin 11 gives a very remarkable instance of this sort of 


11 Serm. 19. de Verb. Apost. t. ro. 
p. 138. [al. Serm. 178. c. 8.] (t. 5. 
p- 853 b.) Nam quod invenisti et 
non reddidisti, rapuisti. Quantum 
potuisti, fecisti: quia plus non po- 
tuisti, ideo non plus fecisti. Qui 
alienum negat, si possit et tollit [al. 
si posset, et tolleret|.... Deus enim 
cor interrogat, non manum. 

12 Hom. 4. im Lev. p. 119. (t. 2. 
p- 201 b.) Multi enim sine peccato 
putent esse, si alienum quod inve- 
nerint teneant, et dicant, Deus mihi 
dedit; cui habeo reddere? Discant 
ergo peccatum hoc esse simile ra- 
pine, si quis inventa non reddat. 

13 Digest. 1. 47. tit. 2. de Furtis, 
leg. 43. n. 9. (t. 3. p. 1290.) Quid 
ergo si evperpa, que dicunt, petat? 
Nec hic videtur furtum facere, etsi 
non probe petat aliquid. 

14 Ubi supra, c.7. (ibid. p.852d.) 
......Dicam quod fecerit pauper- 
rimus homo, nobis apud Mediola- 
num constitutis; tam pauper, ut 
proscholus esset grammatici: sed 


plane Christianus, quamvis ille es- 
set Paganus grammaticus ; melior 
ad velum, quam in cathedra. In- 
venit sacculum, nisi forte me nu- 
merus fallit, cum solidis ferme du- 
centis: memor legis proposuit pit- 
tacium publice. Reddendum enim 
sciebat ; sed cui redderet, ignorabat. 
Proposuit pittacium publice: Qui 
solidos perdidit, veniat ad illum 
locum, et quzret hominem illum. 
Ille qui plangens circumquaque va- 
gabatur, invento et lecto pittacio, 
venit ad hominem. Et ne forte 
quereret alienum, quesivit signa, 
interrogavit sacculi qualitatem, si- 
gillum, solidorum etiam numerum. 
Et cum omnia ille fideliter respon- 
disset, reddidit quod invenerat. Ile 
autem repletus gaudio et qurens 
vicem rependere, tamquam decimas 
obtulit illi solidos viginti: qui no- 
luit accipere. Obtulit vel decem: 
noluit accipere. Saltem rogavit vel 
quinque accipere: noluit ille. Sto- 
machabundus homo projecit saccu- 


458 XVI. xii. 


The great crimes, 


generosity in refusing the reward of finding lost goods, in one 
who was a poor Christian usher to an Heathen schoolmaster at 
Milan. He found a bag of money about the value of two 
hundred shillings, and not knowing who was the owner, ac- 
cording to law he put up a libel publicly to inquire after him : 
for he was sensible he ought to return it, though he knew not 
as yet to whom. The man who had lost the money upon 
notice given in the libel comes to him and tells the marks, the 
condition of the bag, the seal, and the sum, and receives his 
own again. And with great joy, thankfulness, and gratitude, 
offers him the tithe, twenty shillings, as his requital and 
reward; but he would not accept it. He offers him ten; but 
he would not accept it. He intreats him, however, at least to 
take five; but he refused. Upon which the man in anger cast 
down his bag, and said, I have lost nothing: if thou wilt re- 
ceive nothing of me, I have lost nothing. What a brave con- 
tention,’ says St. Austin, ‘ what a prize, what a strife and noble 
conflict was this, where the whole world was the theatre, and 
God the spectator! At last the man is subdued by mere im- 
portunity, and prevailed upon to accept what was offered him ; 
but he immediately gave it all to the poor, and would not 
earry one shilling of it home with him to lay up for his own 
private use.’ 

By this relation we may judge, how great a crime it was 
reckoned to conceal or detain what was lost from the right 
owner, since even the exacting any reward for finding it was 
reputed dishonourable and scandalous, and some ancient canons 
set a particular mark of infamy upon it, as a species of filthy 
lucre. ‘Men ought not,’ says Gregory Thaumaturgus 15, ‘ to 
exact a reward for saving or discovering, or finding any thing 
that was lost, but to live without filthy lucre.’ 


ws sae 6. They put into the same class all such as refused to pay 
O pay jus . . . ve 
ae their just debts, especially such as used any base and sinister 


lum: Nihil perdidi, ait: sinon vis domo sua non dimisit. 


aliquid a me accipere, nec ego ali- 
quid perdidi. Quale certamen, 
fratres mei, quale certamen, qualis 
pugna, qualis conflictus: theatrum 
mundus, spectator Deus. Victus 
tandem ille, quod offerebatur ac- 
cepit: et continuo totum pauperi- 
bus erogavit, unum solidum in 


15 Ep. Canonic. c. 10. ap. Be- 
vereg. Pandect. t. 2. P- 34: (CC. t. 1. 
p. 841 Ὁ. ) Τοὺς δὲ τὴν ἐντολὴν πλη- 
ροῦντας ἐκτὸς “πάσης αἰσχροκερδείας 
πληροῦν! δεῖ, μήτε μήνυτρα, μήτε σῶσ- 
τρα, ἢ εὕρετρα, ἢ ᾧ ὀνόματι καλοῦσιν, 
ἀπαιτοῦντας. 


§ 6, 7. 


arts to excuse themselves from the payment of them. It was 
usual with many Jews to pretend to become converts to Chris- 
tianity, only to shelter themselves from their creditors and the 
justice of the law in many criminal cases also, by claiming the 
privilege of sanctuary in the church. To correct which abuse 
Arcadius made a law 16, ‘ that no such practice should be al- 
lowed: but that they should be repelled from the church, and 
not be received till they had faithfully discharged all their 
debts, and demonstrated their innocence in other respects as 
@ necessary qualification for their admission.’ In some cases 
indeed, when men were unable to pay their debts, the Church 
in charity was inclined to protect them: but then, in that case, 
she was also obliged to pay their debts, as appears from several 
laws 17 made in that behalf; and from the instance which St. 
Austin 15. gives of his own Church paying the debts of one 
Fascius, who fled from his creditors to her protection: and 
this case of necessity was very different from that fraudulent 
and criminal refusal of paying debts when men lay under no 
such straits and difficulties. As therefore the one was matter 
of commiseration, and made men objects of pity and com- 
passion: so the other made them odious and abominable as 
deceitful villains, and rendered them fit objects of legal severity 
and ecclesiastical censure. 

7. Among just debts they always reckoned those which men And what 
contracted by the obligation of promise and mutual engage- pound’ tebe 
ments to each other: and therefore all breach of faith in such Sanne 
cases came under the denomination of theft, and was accordingly mise and 
punished as a species of that transgression. The Council of °™** 
Eliberis 19. applies this particularly to such parents as break 


theft, fraud, Se. 459 


16 Cod. Theod. 1.9. tit.45. Dehis, de latebris oportebit, aut pro his 


qui ad ecclesias confugiunt, leg. 2. 
(t. 3. p. 360.) Judi, qui reatu 
aliquo vel debitis fatigati simulant 
se Christiane legi velle conjugi, ut 
ad ecclesias confugientes vitare pos- 
sint crimina, vel pondera debitorum, 
arceantur; nec ante suscipiantur, 
quam debita universa reddiderint, 
vel fuerint innocentia demonstrata 
purgati. 

17 Tbid. leg. 1. (p. 358.) Publicos 
debitores, si confugiendum ad ec- 
clesias crediderint, aut illico extrahi 


ipsos, qui eos occultare probantur, 
episcopos exigi.—Vid. leg. 3. ibid. 
(p. 361.) Si quis in posterum ser- 
vus, &e. 

18 Ep. 215. [al. 268.] t. 2. p. gor 
d, e.) Cum enim frater noster Fas- 
cius debito decem et septem soli- 
dorum ab oppignoratoribus urgere- 
tur, ut redderet, &c. 

19 Ὁ. 54. (t. 1. p. 976 c.) Si qui 
parentes fidem fregerint sponsalio- 
rum, triennii tempore abstineant se 
[4]. abstineantur] a communione. 


XVI. xii. 


460 The great crimes, 


the espousals or ante-nuptial contracts to which they have 
agreed in behalf of their children: for which offence they are 
obliged to abstain three years from the communion. This in 
effect was a robbery committed both upon persons and things, 
depriving the man of his wife and the woman of her husband, 
and each of them of all those rights and benefits that might 
have accrued to them by such matrimonial contracts. For 
which reason it was ranked among those more heinous thefts, 
and perfidious injuries offered to men’s rights, which were 
thought to deserve a public censure. 

8. And among these, the removing or defacing ancient 
moving bounds and landmarks was accounted no small crime. Even 
bounds and : : : 
landmarks, Among the old Romans it was punished as a capital offence. 

Numa Pompilius divided the Roman fields by certain marks 
erected of stone, which they called lapides sacri, because they 
were consecrated to Jupiter; and the covering or transferring 
these was reckoned such an offence, that amy one who was 
taken in it might lawfully be slain 2° as a sacrilegious person. 
The law of God lays a curse upon it, (Deut. 27, 17.) “ Cursed 
be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.” Constantine 
reckons it among those criminal actions which were to be 
punished in an extraordinary way, as Pitheus?! and Gotho- 
fred 2? have observed from an old remark made upon the Sen- 
tences of the famous lawyer Paulus, which says, Jn ewm, qui 
per vim terminos dejecerit vel amoverit, extra ordinem ani- 
madvertitur : upon which the annotator says, that the same 
thing was determined by Constantine in the Theodosian Code. 
Which makes Gothofred conclude, that either that law is 


Of re- 


20 Vide Calvin. Lexic. Juridic. 
voce, Fines. (p. 377, col. sinistr. 
im.) Numa Pompilius, rex Roma- 
norum secundus, fundorum finibus, 
ut suo quisque contentus esset, sa- 
cros Jovi lapides apponi jussit, 
eosque occultantes aut transferentes 
occidi impune, sacrilegorum instar, 
yoluit. 

21 Annot. in Collat. Leg. Mosaic. 
et Rom. tit. 13. (p. 170.) Sic apud 
Paulum scriptum est Libro 1. Sent., 
ubi in vet. exempl. annotatum re- 
peri idem statui in Codicis Theodo- 
siani 1. 2. sub era 26., qu consti- 
tutio hodie desideratur. 


22 Paratitl. in Cod. Theod. 1. 2. 
de Finibus regundis, tit. 26. (t. 1. 
p- 201.) Czterum hoc titulo aliquid 
desiderari ex eo apparet, quod ad 
tit. 16. 1. 1. Sentent. in veteribus 
exemplaribus annotatur ad hane 
Pauli sententiam, In eum, qui per 
vim terminos dejecerit vel amoverit, 
extra ordinem animadvertitur ; an- 
notatur, inquam, idem statui in 
Cod. Theodos. 1. 2. sub era 26. ut 
annotavit Petrus Pithceus in tit. 13. 
Collation. Leg. Mosaicar. Quare nisi 
legem 1. hujus tit. indicari putemus, 
hic aliquid desideretur, necesse est. 


. 
αὶ 8,9. 


wanting now in the Theodosian Code, or else that it refers to 
Constantine’s first law under that title, which says, Jnvasor 
ille pene teneatur addictus,—Such an invader shall be 
liable to punishment, though the particular manner of punish- 
ment be not expressed. However it was a crime of that nature, 
as to require a peremptory punishment without appeal, as ap- 
pears from another law of Constantine’s in the same Code. 
The ecclesiastical law always condemned this as a cursed 
crime from the law of God: ‘‘ Cursed be he that removeth 
his neighbour’s landmark.” [Deut. 27, 17.] And, “ Remove 
not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” [Proy. 
22, 28.] Under this title they also censured all such am- 
bitious bishops, as, not content with the limits of their own 
dioceses, invaded the territory of others, and endeavoured to 
bring places out of their district under their jurisdiction. Pope 
Innocent?*, writing to a bishop upon such an occasion, reminds 
him of what the Scripture has so often said, ‘that we ought 
not to remove the bounds which our fathers have set,’ and 
therefore admonishes him to quit his pretensions, unless he was 
minded to feel the severity of ecclesiastical censure. 

9. This sort of robbery may also be reckoned under another Of oppres- 
species of theft, which the law calls compound theft, because ον 
it joms something of violence or oppression to the robbery. 
Such as hostile invasion, robbing with arms upon the highway, 
breaking houses in the night, piracy at sea, cruel exactions of 
judges, and other public officers, above what the law allows, 
perverting of justice by bribery or rigorous interpretations of 
the law, together with extortion and unjust usury. ΑἸ] which 
the law condemns under the general name of oppression, and 
the ancient canons make it matter of excommunication. The 
fourth Council of Carthage has one canon forbidding the 
priests to receive any oblations from. those that oppress the 


theft, fraud, δ᾽. 461 


23 L. 9g. tit. 1. de Accusation. leg. 
I. (t. 3. p. 3.) ... Quicunque fines 
aliquos invaserit, publicis legibus 
subjugetur, neque super ejus no- 
mine ad scientiam nostram refera- 
tur. 

_%4 Ep. 8. ad Florentium. (CC. 
t. 2. p. 1263 a.) Non semel, sed 
aliquoties clamat Scriptura divina, 
transferri non oportere terminos, a 


patribus constitutos: quia nefas est, 
si, quod alter semper possederit, 
alter invadat : quod tuam Bonitatem 
frater et coépiscopus noster Ursus 
asserit perpetrasse.... Quod si ve- 
rum est, non leviter te culpam in- 
currisse cognoscas, etc. 

25 C. 94. (ibid. p. 1207 Ὁ.) Eo- 
rum, qui pauperes opprimunt, dona 
a sacerdotibus refutanda. 


462 The great crimes, XVI. xii. 
poor: and another?®, appointing such as denied to the Church 
the oblations of the dead, or refused to pay them without diffi- 
culty and trouble, to be excommunicated, as murderers of the 
poor. Agreeable to which is that of St. Chrysostom?/, directing 
his clergy not to admit any cruel or unmerciful man to the 
Lord’s table: ‘ Although it be a general, although it be a go- 
vernor or consul, although it be he that wears the crown, pro- 
hibit him: thou in this case hast greater power than he.’ And 
again, inveighing against oppressors, who offered alms out of 
what they had violently taken from others, he says elegantly28 
‘that God will not have his altar covered with tears; Christ 
will not be fed with robbery ; such sort of sustenance is most 
ungrateful to him: it is an affront to the Lord to offer unclean 
things to him. He had rather be neglected, and perish by 
famine in his poor members, than live by such oblations. The 
one is cruelty, but the other is both cruelty and an affront like- 
wise. It is better to give nothing, than to give that which of 
right belongs to other men.’ After the same manner St. Austin 
answers 9 the plausible apologies of spoilers and oppressors. 
Their plea was, ‘I make feasts of charity, I send meat to them 
that are bound in prison, I clothe the naked, I entertain 
strangers. Do you imagine this is properly giving? Do not 
take from others, and then you may be said to give. He, to 
whom you give, rejoices; but he, from whom you take, la- 


26 C. 95. (ibid. b.) Qui oblationes 
defunctorum aut negant ecclesiis, 
aut cum difficultate reddunt, tan- 
quam egentium necatores excom- 
municentur. 

27 Hom. 82. al. 83. in Matth. p. 
705. (t. 7. p. 789 c.).... Κἂν orpa- 
τηγός τις ἢ, κἂν ὕπαρχος, κἂν αὐτὸς ὁ 
τὸ διάδημα περικείμενος, ἀναξίως δὲ 
προσείη, κώλυσον, μείζονα ἐκείνου 
τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις. 

23 Hom. 86. al. 87. in Matth. p. 
722. [Bened. 85. al. 86.] (ibid. p. 
808 a.) Ov βούλεται Χριστὸς πλεο- 
veEia τρέφεσθαι, οὐ δέχεται ταύτην 
τὴν τροφήν" τί τὸν Δεσπότην ὑβρίζεις 
ἀκάθαρτα προσάγων αὐτῷ ; βέλτιον 
λιμῷ τηκόμενον περιορᾷν, ἢ τρέφειν 
ἀπὸ τοιούτων ἐκεῖνο ὠμοῦ, τοῦτο 
[καὶ ὠμοῦ. Ben. et Sav.] καὶ ὑβρι- 
στοῦ" βέλτιον μηδὲν δοῦναι, ἢ τὰ GA- 
λων ἑτέροις. 


29 Serm. 19. de Verb. Apost. [4]. 
Serm. 178. c. 4.] (t. 5. p. 850 f.) 
Sed ait mihi raptor rerum aliena- 
rum, Ego similis illius divitis non 
sum: agapes facio, vinctis in car- 
cere victum mitto, nudos vestio, 
peregrinos suscipio. Dare te putas? 
Tollere noli, et dedisti. Cui dederis, 
gaudet: cui abstuleris, plorat : quem 
duorum istorum exauditurus est 
Dominus?  Dicis ei, cui dederis, 
Gratias age, quia accepisti. Sed 
alter tibi ex alia parte dicit, Ego 
gemo, cui abstulisti. Et pene totum 
tenuisti, et exiguum illi dedisti. Si 
ergo, quod alteri abstulisses, egenti- 
bus dedisses, nec talia opera diligit 
Deus. Dicit tibi Deus, Stulte, jussi, 
ut dares, sed non de alieno. Si 
habes, da de tuo: si non habes 
quod des de tuo, melius nulli dabis, 
quam alteros spoliabis. 


§ 9. 


theft, fraud. §c. 463 


ments : which of the two will God hear? You say to him to 
whom you give, Give thanks, because you have received. But 
he, on the other hand, from whom you have taken it, says, I 
mourn. You keep almost the whole, and give a small portion 
to the other. If, therefore, you give to the poor what you take 
from others, God is not pleased with such works. God says to 
thee, Thou fool, I commanded thee to give, but not that which 
is another man’s. If thou hast ought, give of that which is 
thine own: if thou hast not of thine own to give, it is better 
thou shouldest not give, than spoil some to give to others.’ He 
says in another place®°, ‘ some were so vain as to think that a 
little alms before they died would effectually expiate all their 
sins, however wicked and rapacious they had been all their 
lives before :’ against whom he disputes accurately and sharply 
in several Books3!, which it would be needless here to cite at 
large. 

I only add, that, agreeable to those rules, the Author of the 
Constitutions under the name of the Apostles, giving directions 
to bishops about the persons from whom they were to receive 


oblations at the altar, or refuse them, among many other cri- 


minals, orders®? them ‘to reject those who afflict the widow, 


30 De Civitate Dei, 1. 21. 6. 22. 
(t. 7. p. 640 a.) Comperi etiam 
quosdam putare eos tantummodo 
arsuros illius zternitate supplicii, 
qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas 
eleemosynas negligunt, juxta illud 
Apostoli Jacobi, Judicium autem sine 
misericordia illi, qui non fecit mise- 
ricordiam. Qui ergo fecerit, inqui- 
unt, quamvis mores in melius non 
mutaverit, sed inter ipsas suas elee- 
mosynas nefarie ac nequiter vixerit, 
judicium illi cum misericordia futu- 
rum est, ut aut nulla damnatione 
plectatur, aut post aliquod tempus, 
sive parvum sive prolixum, ab illa 
damnatione liberetur. Ideo Judi- 
cem ipsum vivorum atque mortuo- 
rum noluisse existimant aliud com- 
memorare se esse dicturum, sive 
dextris quibus est vitam daturus 
zternam, sive sinistris quos eterno 
supplicio est damnaturus, nisi elee- 
mosynas sive factas, sive non fac- 
tas, &c. 

$1 Ibid. 1. 21. c. 27. (p. 650 a.) 


Restat eis respondere, &c.—Enchi- 
rid. cc. 75 et 76. (t. 6. pp. 220, 221.) 
Serm. 35. de Verb. Dom. [al. Serm. 
$23.0e072.)) (Wigs) pe BOS es SP pe 
569 a.) Hoc [scil. mammona ini- 
quitatis] quidam male intelligendo 
rapiunt res alienas, et aliquid inde 
pauperibus largiuntur, et putant se 
facere quod preceptum est ... Nolo 
sic intelligatis. De justis laboribus 
facite eleemosynas, &c.—Cont. Ju- 
lian. Pelagian. 1. 5. c. 10. (t. 10. p. 
649 f, g.).. Nec furta facienda sunt, 
etiam voluntate pascendi pauperes 
sanctos: quod tamen faciendum est, 
non furta perpetrando, sed bene 
utendo mammona iniquitatis, &e.— 
Vid. plura ap. Gratian. caus. 14. 
questt. 5 et 6. (t. T. pp. 1054. 40, 
5664.) Nolite velle eleemosynas fa- 
cere de foenore et usuris, &c. 

82 L. 4. ς. 6. [al. 5.] (Cotel. v. 1. 
p. 294.) ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ οἱ ἐκθλίβοντες 
χήραν, καὶ ὀρφανὸν καταδυναστεύον- 
τες, καὶ τὰς φυλακὰς πληροῦντες ἀναι- 
τίων, ἣ καὶ τοῖς ἑαυτῶν οἰκέταις πονη- 


464 The great crimes, XVI. xii. 


and oppress the fatherless by their power, and fill the prisons 
with innocent persons, and evil intreat? their servants with 
stripes, famine, or hard bondage ; and lay waste whole cities ; 
all lawyers, that plead for injustice or unrighteous causes ; all 
unrighteous judges; all wicked publicans, and usurers, and 
soldiers, that are false accusers, and not content with their 
wages, but oppress the poor.’ 


Oftheex- 10. And that this was agreeable to the common discipline of 
actions and : ag : 
bribery of the Church, will appear by examining the particulars. 


judges. I begin with that which was the most flagitious and intolerable, 
viz. the oppression committed by judges in their office, partly by 
cruel exactions, partly by feigned accusations, and partly by 
perversion of justice for the sake of bribery and filthy lucre: 
which sorts of oppression the law commonly terms erimen re- 
petundarum, and peculatus. For though peculatus often sig- 
nifies robbing the public by private stealth, yet it sometimes 
also denotes the oppressions and injuries done by magistrates 
to the subject. In which case the censures of the Church were 
often inflicted upon oppressing governors. As we have a famous 
instance of Synesius?3 excommunicating Andronicus, the go-. 
vernor of Ptolemais, for his violent oppression of the people. 
The imperial laws were also very numerous, and very severe 
in this case, to secure the rights and properties of the people 
from such violent invasion. They did not indeed allow the sub- 
ject for some time to accuse the magistrate during the year 
of his administration: but Theodosius took off even that re- 
straint3+, and not only gave men liberty, but invited and en- 
couraged men of all orders to bring informations against cor- 


ρῶς χρώμενοι, πληγαῖς φημι καὶ λιμῷ 
καὶ κακοδουλίᾳ, ἢ καὶ πόλεις ὅλας 
λυμαινόμενοι, φευκταῖοι ἔστωσάν σοι, 
ὦ ἐπίσκοπε" καὶ ai τούτων προσφοραὶ 
μυσαραί" παραιτήσῃ δὲ καὶ... ῥήτορας 
ἀδικίᾳ συναγωνιζομένους, .. .. καὶ τε- 
λώνας ἀδίκους, καὶ ζυγοκρούστας, καὶ 
δολομέτρας, καὶ στρατιώτην συκοφάν- 
την, μὴ ἀρκούμενον τοῖς ὀψωνίοις, 
ἀλλὰ τοὺς πένητας διασείοντα. 

és Ep. 57: Ρ- 172. (p- 201.) ᾿Αν- 
δρόνικον τὸν Βερονικέα, k.T.r. See 
also before, ch. 2. 5.6. p. 84. n. 62. 

34 Cod. Theod. 1. Ὁ. tit. 27. ad 
Legem Juliam Repetundarum, leg. 


6. (t. 3. p. 216.) Jubemus, horta- 
mur, ut si quis....a judice fuerit 
aliqua ratione concussus; si quis 
scit venalem de jure fuisse senten- 
tiam : si quis poenam vel pretio re- 
missam, vel vitio cupiditatis inges- 
tam; si quis postremo quacunque 
de causa improbum judicem potu- 
erit approbare ; is vel administrante 
eo, vel post administrationem depo- 
sitam, in publicum prodeat, crimen 
deferat, delatum approbet: cum pro- 
baverit, et victoriam reportaturus et 
gloriam. 


§ Io. 


theft, fraud, &c. 465 
rupt judges, if they had either suffered any violence from them 
themselves, or knew them to be guilty of bribery, or setting 
justice to sale, or any the like improbity: and that as well in 
the time of their administration as afterward; promising a re- 
ward to any that should make good such charges against them. 
The like encouragement was given by Constantine and Valen- 
tinian Junior, as appears by their laws®° now exstant in the 
Theodosian Code. And whereas the punishment of such cor- 
ruption in the magistrate was only a pecuniary mulct before, 
Theodosius by a new law®® made it death, as thinking no pun- 
ishment too great for such an offence. At Carthage they had 
a peculiar good custom, which tended much to discourage all 
such rapacious practices in their magistrates. For Prosper?7 
tells us, that every year the new proconsul was used upon a 
certain day, which they called albi citatio, to read over a list 
of the governors that had been before him: and then they that 
had been just in their administration, and gone through their 
office without covetousness, or rapaciousness, or any such fla- 


35 L. g. tit. 1. de Accusationibus, 
leg. 4. (ibid. p. 6.) Si quis est cu- 


_ juscunque loci, ordinis, dignitatis, 


qui se in quemcunque judicum, 
comitum, amicorum, vel palatino- 
rum meorum, aliquid veraciter et 
manifesto probare posse confidit, 
quod non integre atque juste ges- 
sisse videatur, intrepidus et securus 
accedat; interpellet me. Ipse au- 
diam omnia, ipse cognoscam: et si 
fuerit comprobatum, ipse me vindi- 
cabo. Dicat securus, et bene sibi 
conscius dicat: si probaverit, ut 
dixi, ipse me vindicabo de eo, qui 
me usque ad hoc tempus simulata 
integritate deceperit. [lum autem, 
qui hoe prodiderit et comprobaverit, 
et dignitatibus et rebus augebo, &c. 
—Ibid. tit. 27. ad ee Juliam 
Repetundarum, leg. 7. (p. 217.) 
Unusquisque procurator, preposi- 
tus gynzcio, tabularius, susceptor, 
colonus, vel quicunque se a comite 
domorum meminerit esse concus- 
sum, cum ipse, cul pecuniam nume- 
ravit, administratione decesserit, in- 
tra anni spatia ad judicium Specta- 
bilitatis tuze, quidquid dederit repe- 
titurus, accurrat: ut prosit pensio- 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI 


nibus, quidquid ille reddiderit. Sin 
vero ex tempore deposit adminis- 
trationis prestituti temporis curri- 
cula transfluxerint, nulla vox advo- 
cationis emergat, sed ipsos procura- 
tores, prepositos, colonos, tabula- 
rios, susceptores obnoxios ad solu- 
tionem jubemus citari. 

36 L. g. tit. 28. de Crimine Pecu- 
latus, leg. 1. (ibid. p. 219.) Pridem 
fuerat constitutum, ut hi judices, qui 
peculatu§ provincias quassavissent, 
mulcte dispendio subjacerent ; sed 
quoniam nec condigna crimini ul- 
tio est, nec par pena peccato, pla- 
cuit. ...capitale hoc esse, atque ani- 
madversione severissima coerceri. 

37 De Promiss. Dei, sive Glor. 
Sanctor. in Perorat. (append. p. 
206 c. 3.) In calculis eburneis no- 
mina proconsulum conscripta Car- 
thagine in foro coram populo a pre- 
senti judice sub certis vocabulis ci- 
tabantur, et erat solemnis dies Albi 
Citatio. Hi, qui avaritiam superan- 
tes, rempublicam fideliter egerant 
absque flagitiis facinoribusque, etiam 
absentes honorabantur: eos vero, 
quos rapacitas vicerat, populus con- 
viciis sibilisque notabat. 

Hh 


466 


The great crimes, XVL. xi. 


grant crimes, were honoured in their absence by the applauses 
of the people: but, on the other hand, they, whom covetousness 
had driven into scandalous measures of robbery and violence, 
were noted with marks of infamy by general hissings and re- 
proaches 

11. The laws were equally severe against all super-exactors, 
as they are called, of the public revenues. The common bur- 
den of tribute and taxes was generally hard enough, even as 
settled by law’, in the Roman government: but the illegal 
exactions of the publicans and collectors made it a much more 
intolerable burden. Therefore the laws were forced to restrain 
and chastise their oppressions with great severity. Constantine 
made several laws to this purpose 39, condemning this crime as 
a capital offence, according to Gothofred’s interpretation 4° of 
severe punishment. Valentinian and Valens obliged the ex- 
actor to make restitution fourfold to the injured party 4), and 
condemned the judge in the same quadruple sum, if he refused 


Of the ex- 
actions of 
publicans, 
and collec- 
tors of the 
public re- 
venues, and 
other offi- 
cers of the 
Roman 
empire. 


upon complaint to do him justice. 


38 Vid. Lipsium, De Magnitudine 
Romana, 1. 2. cc. 1, seqq. (Oper. t. 
3. pp- 692, seqq.) De priscis Populi 
Romani vectigalibus, &c. 

39 Cod. Theod. 1. 8. tit. το. de 
Concussionibus Advocatorum, leg. 
I. (t. 2. p.599.) Si quis se a duce- 
narlis, vel centenariis, ac preecipue 
fisci advocatis, lesum esse cognos- 
cit, adire judicia ac probare injuriam 
non moretur, ut in eum, qui con- 
victus fuerit, competenti severitate 
vindicetur. 

40 In loc. (s. 2.) Constantinus hac 
lege lzesis animum dedit concussores 
accusandi: judices vero severiter in 
eos vindicare jubet tum hac lege, 
tum d. 1.1. De Exactionibus ; quibus 
verbis capitalem poenam indicari pu- 
to.—Conf. 1. 11. tit. 1. de Annona et 
Tributis, leg. 3. (t. 4. p. 9.) Manu 
propria judices universi, periculo 
suo, annonarias species, et cetera, 
que indictione penduntur, definitis 
quantitatibus et comprehensis modis, 
facta ascriptione, designent: cujus 
observantiz illa erit commoditas, ut 
post successionem quoque eorum, fa- 
cile requiratur, an exactores, ultra 
quam oportuit, de fortunis provin- 


But Arcadius, finding that 


clarum aliquid exsculpere voluerunt. 
—lIt.1.11. tit. 7. de Exaction. leg. 1. 
(ibid. 66.) Ducenarii, et centenarii, 
sive sexagenarii, non prius debent 
aliquem ex debitoribus conyenire, 
quam a tabulario civitatis nominatim 
breves accipiant debitorum: quam 
quidem exactionem sine omni fieri 
concussione oportet; ita ut, si quis 
in judicio questus, quod indebite ex- 
actus est, vel aliquam inquietudinem 
sustinuit, hoc ipsum probare potu- 
erit, severa in exactores sententia 
proferatur.—Conf. etiam 1. 4. tit. 12. 
de Vectigalibus, leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 379.) 
Penes illum vectigalia manere opor- 
tet, qui superior in licitatione exsti- 
terit ; ita, ut non minus quam tri- 
ennii fine locatio concludatur, nec 
ullo modo interrumpatur tempus 
exigendis vectigalibus preestitutum : 
quo peracto tempore, licitationum 


jura conductionemque recreari opor- 


tet, quem plus aliquid, quam statu- 
tum est, a provincialibus exegisse 
constiterit. 

41 Tbid. 1. τα. tit. 16. de Extraord. 
leg. 11. (t. 4. p. 123.).... Obnoxius 
quadrupli repetitione teneatur. 


§ IT, 12. theft, fraud, δ᾽. 467 


this law of Valentinian did not effectually put a stop to these 
exorbitant demands, made it death‘? for any exactor to go 
beyond his bounds. And Honorius, some years after, joined 
both punishments together, ordering the exactor to be put to 
death and quadruple restitution 43 to be made out of his estate 
to the injured person ; laying a fine withal of thirty pounds of 
gold upon any judge that neglected to put the law in execution. 
Now what the civil law so severely condemned, there is no 
question but that the ecclesiastical law punished in the spiritual 
way, with equal severity, under the general name of oppres- 
sion. 

12. There was another cruel way of oppression under colour Of the 
of law, much practised by advocates and lawyers, commonly irra tg 
called scholastici and defensores, and the apparitors and officers cates, and 
of the civil courts, and attendants of judges. Their exactions ae 
and extortions upon men’s necessities are frequently complained ritors of 
of, and provided against by several laws. The law aibwed 
them certain stated wages, or canonical pensions, as the term 
is, for pleading and managing causes: but beyond these they 
often made no scruple to exact maintenance for themselves and 
their horses, wherever they came, in the city, or In mansions, 
without any pay; which super-exactions are particularly noted 
in advocates and officers by Constantius 5, as instances of in- 
satiable covetousness: and therefore he gives orders to judges 
to defend the people from such extortions, and not suffer their 
injuries and encroachments to go unpunished. Constantine 


42 Tbid. 1. 11. tit. 8. de Superex- 
actionibus, leg. 1. (p. 83.) Si quis 
exactorum superexactionis crimen 
_fuerit confutatus, eandem pcnam 
“subeat, que Divi Valentiniani sanc- 
tione dudum fuerat definita. Capitis 
namque periculo posthac cupiditas 
amovenda est, que prohibita toties 
in hisdem sceleribus perseverat. 

43 [bid. 1. 11. tit. 7. de Exactioni- 
bus, leg. 20. (p. 81.).... Si in con- 
cussione possessorum exactores fu- 
erint deprehensi, illico et capitali 
periculo subjaceant, et direptorum 
quadrupli poena ex eorum patri- 
monio eruetur, &c.—Vid. ibid. tit. 
8. de Superexactionibus, legg. 2 et 3 
ejusdem Honorii. (p. 84.)— Ibid. 
tit. 26. de Discussoribus, leg. 1. &c. 


(p. 185.)—L. 13. tit. rr. de Censito- 

ribus, “lege. 7 et το. (t. 5. pp. ea 

133.) —V alentiniani III. Novel. 

de Indulgentiis reliquorum ; ad cal. 

Cod. Theod. (t. 6. append. p. 23.) 
. Sciamus licet, &c. 

44 [bid. 1. 8. tit. το. de Concus- 
sionibus Advocatorum et Apparito- 
rum, leg. 2. (t. 2. p. 599.) Preter 
solemnes et canonicas pensitationes 
multa a provincialibus Afris indig- 
nissime postulantur ab officialibus 
et scholasticis, non modo in civita- 
tibus singulis, sed et mansionibus, 
dum ipsis et animalibus eorundem 
alimonie sine pretio ministrantur, 
&e. .. Provinciales itaque cuncti ju- 
dices tueantur, nec injurias inultas 
transire permittant, 


uh2 


468 The great crimes, XVI. xii. 


reflects upon the like extortions of advocates in making wicked 
bargains with their clients*>, to make over to them the best 
of their lands, their cattle, and their slaves; which he calls 
‘spoiling and pillaging those that stood in need of their pa- 
tronage ;’ and orders, ‘ that such rapacious vultures,’ as Gotho- 
fred terms them, ‘should be expelled the court and never after 
be allowed the liberty of pleading.’ 

Another way whereby wicked advocates were wont to op- 
press the poor, was, by encouraging their clients to draw their 
adversaries to a civil cause from the cognizance of the ordinary 
judges to a military tribunal, where they had more liberty by 
bribery, and other corrupt practices, to oppress them. Great 
complaints are made by Ammianus Marcellinus ‘© of this sort 
of depredation made upon the poor in the time of Valens, who, 
he says, ‘ opened the doors to robbery, which gained strength 
every day by the pravity of the judges and advocates, who 
sold the causes of poor men to the rulers in the army, or such 
as bore sway in the palace, by which means they increased 
their wealth, or brought themselves to preferment.’ To correct 
this abuse, Arcadius made a law 47, ‘ that whoever transferred 
a civil cause from the ordinary judges to a military court 
should be liable to banishment, besides other penalties inflicted 
by former laws; and the advocate concerned in such a cause 


45 bid. 1. 2. tit. το. de Postulan- 
do, leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 138.) Advocatos, 
qui consceleratis depectionibus suze 
opis egentes spoliant atque denu- 
dant, non jure cause, sed fundorum, 
pecorum et mancipiorum qualitate 
rationeque tractata, dum eorum pre- 
cipua poscant coacta sibi pactione 
transcribi, ab honestorum ccetu ju- 
diciorumque conspectu  segregari 
precipimus.—Conf. Cod. Justin. 
1. 2. tit. 6. de Postulando, leg. 5. (t. 
4. p- 379.) Si qui advocatorum ex- 
istimationi sue immensa atque illi- 
cita compendia pretulisse sub no- 
mine honorariorum ex ipsis negotiis, 
quze tuenda susceperint, emolumenta 
sibi certe partis cum gravi damno 
litigatoris et depreedatione poscentes 
fuerint inventi: placuit, ut omnes, 
qui in hujusmodi sevitate perman- 
serint, ab hac professione penitus 
arceantur. [Read scevitate for se- 


vitate, and see Gothofred on the 
preceding law. Cod. Theod. ibid. 
p-139. Seealso Ed. Amstel. 1663. 
of the Corp. Jur. Civil. (t. 1. p. 86.) 
n. 30, in the margin. Ep. 

46 L. 30. c. 4. p. 448. (p. 591.)..- 
Laxavitque rapinarum fores, que 
roborantur indies judicum adyoca- 
torumque pravitate, sentientium pa- 
ria, qui, tenuiorum negotia militaris 
rei rectoribus vel intra palatium 
validis venditantes, aut opes, aut 
honores quesivere preclaros. 

47 Cod. Theod. 1. 2. tit. 1. de Ju- 
risdiction. leg. 9. (t. 1. p. 86.) Si 
quis, neglectis judicibus ordinariis, 
sine ccelesti oraculo causam civilem 
ad militare judicium credideret de- 
ferendam, preter pcenas ante pro- 
mulgatas, intelligat se deportationis 
sortem excepturum. Nihilominus 
et advocatum ejus decem libris auri 
condemnatio feriendum. 


theft, fraud, Sc. 469 


should forfeit ten pounds of gold, except they had a special 
license from the emperor for such a removal.’ Valentinian 
IIL. added to this 4%. ‘that the advocate should lose his office, 
and the counsellor be banished also.’ And there were many 
other laws made by Theodosius, Valentinian Junior, and Mar- 
cian, to the same purpose, which the curious reader may find 
in Gothofred upon the forementioned law of Arcadius. 

It is true the ecclesiastical law does not particularly specify 
these things; but we may suppose, they, being great crimes, 
were included in the general notion of illegal oppression, which 
was thought to deserve ecclesiastical censure. 

13. But there is one sort of oppression which the laws of the Of griping 
Church more particularly take notice of, and condemn both in the να κῶς 
clergy and laity, that is, griping usury or extortion upon the 
poor. The nature of usury, and the several degrees of it, I 
have had occasion already to explain in a former Book#9: all, 
therefore I shall here take notice of, is. the censures which the 
Church passed upon all that were guilty of what they reckoned 
cruel and criminal in it. The Council of Eliberis not only 
orders the clergy to be degraded, who were found guilty of 
taking usury, but threatens excommunication to every lay- 
man °° that, after admonition, persisted in the practice of it. 
And the first Council of Carthage gives this reason why cler- 
gymen should not practise it*!, because it was a thing that 
was culpable in laymen. And the reason why it was so gene- 
rally condemned by the Ancients even in laymen, was, because 
it was generally a great oppression of the poor, to whom the 
charity of lending without usury was due; and many times it 
was attended with extortion, as in the centesimal interest, 
which was twelve in the hundred; and what they called he- 
miolia, which was receiving half as much more as the prin- 
cipal by way of interest, both which were condemned by the 
laws of the State as illegal exactions, and downright extortion. 
Upon which bottom all the arguments and invectives of the 


§ 12, 13. 


48 Novel. de Episcopali Judicio, 
tit. 12. ad calc. Theod. (t. 6. ap- 
pend. p. 26.)....Causidicum officii 
amissio, jurisconsultum existimatio- 
nis et interdicte civitatis damna 
percellant. 

49 B. 6. ch. 2. s. 6. v. 2. δι 206. 

50 C. 20. (t. 1. p.973 8.) Si quis 


etiam laicus accepisse probatur usu- 
ras,...8i in ea iniquitate duraverit, 
ab ecclesia sciat se esse projicien- 
dum. 

51 (Ὁ, 13. (t. 2. p. 1826 e,) Quod 
in laicis reprehenditur, id multo ma- 
gis in clericis oportet [4]. debet] pra- 
damnari. 


470 The great crimes, KVL xu 
Ancients are founded. So that usury in this sense was reck- 
oned a plain robbery of the poor, and a cruel oppression of 
those to whom merey and charity ought to be shown upon all 
occasions. And to this we may join all extortion made by force 
or fear, which the Civil Law? condemns and annuls, though a 
covenant or promise had been obtained of the injured party. 
14. The last sort of robbery was that which was committed 
by fraud and deceit, which the law calls dolus malus, and stel- 
lionatus, from stellio, that little animal with shining spots like 
stars, the lizard or tarantula, of which naturalists 55. observe, 
that there is no animal which more fraudulently envies man 
than this: for changing his skin every year, which> was 
reckoned a sovereign remedy against the falling-sickness, he 
devours it himself, lest men should have the benefit of it: 
whence the lawyers call all imposture and fraud, which has no 
special title in law, by the name of stedlionatus, as Ulpian 53 
explains it: thus if a man mortgage or pawn that which is 
already engaged, fraudulently dissembling the former obliga- 
tion; or pass it away in exchange, or pretend to pay debts 
with it, when it is under a pre-engagement; all such frauds 
are called stellionatus. So if aman change the wares which 
he has sold, or corrupt them, or direct them to another use 
after he has pawned them; or if he used any collusion or im- 
posture to compass the death of any man, this was reckoned a 
fraud of the same nature. If in giving a pawn he substituted 
brass in the room of gold; if he sold a freeman under the 
notion of a slave; if he received a sum of money as a debt that 
was really paid him before; he was lable to be punished upon 
an action of fraud upon the same title °°; and for his crime, 


Of forgery. 


52 Cod. Theod. 1. 2. tit. 9. de 
Pactis, leg. 4. (t. 1. p. 129.) Pacta 
quidem per vim et metum apud om- 
nes satis constat cassata viribus re- 
spuenda. 

% Plin. 1.30. δ. τὸ. ΠΡ Βα: στ) 
...-. Nullum animal fraudulentius 
invidere homini tradunt: inde stel- 
lionum nomen aiunt in maledictum 
translatum, &c. 

54 Digest. 1. 47. tit. 20. leg. 3. (t. 
3. Ρ. 1403.) Stellionatum autem ob- 
jici posse his, qui dolo quid fecerunt, 
sciendum est: scilicet si aliud cri- 


men non sit, quod objiciatur: quod 
enim in privatis judiciis est de dolo 
actio, hoc in criminibus stellionatus 
persecutio. Ubicunque igitur titu- 
lus criminis deficit, illic stellionatus 
objiciemus. Maxime autem in his 
locum habet, si quis forte rem alii 
obligatam dissimulata obligatione per 
calliditatem alii distraxerit, vel per- 
mutaverit, vel in solutum dederit: 
nam he omnes species stellionatum 
continent, &c. 

55 Vid. Calvin. Lexicon. Juridi- 
cum, voce Stellionatus, (p. 809. col. 


theft, fraud, Se. 471 


if he was a plebeian, he might be condemned to the mines ; 
if a person of quality, he might be sent into banishment, or be 
degraded. The instances of such frauds and collusions are 
too many and intricate to be here particularly recounted, but 
the chief of them may be summed up under these five titles, 
forgery, calumny, flattery, deceitfulness in trust, and deceitful- 
ness in traftic. 

Forgery may be committed either in counterfeiting coin, to 
impose upon the unskilful and unwary; or else in counterfeiting 
deeds and instruments, to lay claim to other men’s estates, as 
is done by those who make a title upon false wills or bonds, or 
conceal or corrupt the true ones. The counterfeiting of the 
coin was not only an injury to private men in commerce, but 
also au act of treason against the supreme powers: and there- 
fore punished as a capital offence with confiscation, banishment, 
or death, and that sometimes of the cruellest sort, burning 


alive, as appears from several 


sinistr.) Stellionatum jureconsulti 
appellant fraudem omnem atque im- 
posturam, que propriam significa- 
tionem non habet, et in proprium 
delicti nomen non cadit: (1.7. ὃ 1 ff. 
ad Turpill.) veluti si quis rem alie- 
nam sciens obliget, vel alii jam pig- 
noratam alii denuo obliget, vel pig- 
nore dando pro auro xs subjecerit, 
stellionatus crimen committit: (1. 1 
ff. de stellionatu, 1. 16. § 1.1. 36 ff. de 
pign.act.) Similiter qui sciens statu 
liberum dissimulata ejus conditione 
vendit, vel creditor numeratam jam 
sibi pecuniam iterum accipiens, stel- 
lionatus crimine plectitur. 

56 [. 0. tit. 21. de Fals. Monet. 
leg. τ. (t. 3. p. 169.) Quicunque 
adulterina fecerit nomismata, poe- 
nam pro discretione sexus et condi- 
tionis suz diversitate sustineat : hoc 
est, ut si decurio, vel decurionis sit 
filius, exterminatus genitali solo, ad 
quamcungue in longinquo positam 
eivitatem sub perpetui exsilii condi- 
tione mittatur, aut super facultatibus 
ejus ad nostram Scientiam referatur. 
Si plebeius, ut rebus amissis per- 
petuze damnationi dedatur: si ser- 
vilis conditionis, ultimo supplicio 
subjugetur.—Leg. 2. (p. 170.) Quo- 
niam nonnulli monetarii adulterina 


laws in the Theodosian Code 56 


moneta [leg. adulterinam monetam] 
clandestinis sceleribus__ exercent, 
cuncti cognoscant, necessitatem sibi 
incumbere hujusmodi homines in- 
quirendi, ut investigati tradantur ju- 
diciis. .... Si miles aut promotus 
hujusmodi crimen incurrit, super 
ejus nomine et gradu ad nos refera- 
tur. Si dominum fundi vel domus 
conscium esse probabitur, deportari 
eum in insulam oportebit, cunctis 
ejus rebus protinus confiscandis : si 
vero eo ignaro crimen commissum 
est, possessionem aut domum debet 
amittere, in qua id scelus admissum 
est: actor fundi, vel servus, vel in- 
cola, vel colonus, qui hoc ministe- 
rium prebuit, cum eo qui fecit, sup- 
plicio capitali plectetur: nihilominus 
fundo, vel domo fisci viribus vindi- 
canda. Quod si dominus ante igno- 
rans, ut primum reperit, scelus pro- 
didit perpetratum, minime possessio, 
vel domus ipsius proscriptionis in- 
jurie subjacebit: sed auctorem ac 
ministrum pcena capitalis excipiet. 
—Leg. 3.(p- 173.) Si quis nummum 
falsa fusione formaverit, universas 
ejus facultates fisco addici precipi- 
mus, atque ipsum severitate legitima 
coerceri, ut in monetis tantum nos- 
tris cudende pecuniz studium fre- 


474 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 
made upon this occasion. Particularly Constantine, in one 57 
of his laws, orders such ‘ to be put to the sword, or burnt alive, 
or to be punished with some such violent death, whether they 
were guilty of clipping the coin, and diminishing its quantity, 
or adulterating its quality, and vending it as good by manifest 
fraud and imposture.’ And what the law punished thus severely 
in the State, there is no question but that it was with equal 
severity in the spiritual way censured, and condemned as a 
fraud and robbery by the Church. 

The counterfeiting of false deeds, and especially false wills, 
was esteemed an heinous crime even by the old Roman laws, 
of which there is a whole title in the Pandects>*; one of which, 
related by the famous lawyer Julius Paulus, says 59, ‘ Whoever 
conceals a will, or conveys it away, or destroys it, or puts an- 
other in its room, or cancels it; or whoever writes, or signs, or 
fraudulently produces a false will, is hable to be punished upon 
an action of forgery, by the Cornelian law.’ And that punish- 
ment is either banishment, or confiscation ©, or death according 


to the quality of the offender. 


tine ®! the same punishments 


quentetur.—Leg. 5. (p. 175-) Pre- 
mio accusatoribus proposito, qui- 
cunque solidorum adulter potuerit 
reperiri, vel a quoquam fuerit publi- 
catus, illico omni dilatione submota, 
flammarum exustionibus mancipe- 
tur.—Leg. 6. (p. 176.) Comperimus, 
nonnullos flaturarios Majorinam pe- 
cuniam non minus criminose, quam 
crebre, separato argento ab ere, pur- 
gare. Si quis igitur posthee fuerit 
in hac machinatione deprehensus, 
capitaliter se fecisse cognoscat, &c. 

57 Tbid. tit. 22. Si quis solidi cir- 
culum inciderit, vel adulteratum in 
vendendo subjecerit, leg. 1. (p. 181.) 
.... Aut capite punin debet, aut 
flammis tradi, vel alia poena morti- 
fera. Quod ille etiam patietur, qui 
mensuram circuli exterioris arrase- 
rit, ut ponderis minuat quantitatem ; 
vel figuratum solidum adultera imi- 
tatione in vendendo  subjecerit.— 
Vid. Digest. 1. 13. tit. 7. de Pignorat. 
Action. leg. 1. See afterwards, s. 17. 
Ρ. 479. n. 77.—Ibid. leg. τό. (t. 1. 
p- 1401.) 


And by the laws of Constan- 
of banishment and death were 


58 Digest. 1. 48. tit. 10. de Lege 
Cornelia de Falsis. (t. 3. p. 1474.) 

59 Tbid. leg. 2. (p. 1476.) Qui tes- 
tamentum amoverit, celaverit, eri- 
puerit, deleverit, interleverit, subje- 
cerit, resignaverit ; quive testamen- 
tum falsum scripserit, signaverit, 
recitaverit dolo malo, cujusve dolo 
id factum erit Legis Corneliz peena 
damnatur. 

60 Ibid. leg. 1. n. 13. (p. 1476.) 
Peena falsi, vel quasi falsi, deportatio 
est, et omnium bonorum publicatio: 
et si servus eorum aliquid admiserit, 
ultimo supplicio affici jubetur. 

61 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. το. ad 
Leg. Cornel. de Falso, leg. 2. 8. 4.” 
(t. 3. p. 159.) Capitali post proba- 
tionem supplicio, si id exiget mag- 
nitudo commissi, vel deportatione 
ei, qui falsum commiserit, immi- 
nente, &c.—Vid. Cod. Justin. 1. το. 
tit.13. De his, qui se deferunt, leg. 1. 


(t. 5. p. 24.).... Et tunc occultator 
ille gestorum....in insulam depor- 
tetur. 


§ 14,15. theft, fraud, Sc. 473 


awarded to this sort of forgery. And though the ecclesiastical 
laws do not particularly specify the punishment of this crime, 
yet they must be supposed to comprehend it under the general 
title of theft and robbery, which made men liable to ecclesias- 
tical censure. 
15. Another sort of fraud that might be committed against Of calumny 
men, in order to rob them of their estates and fortunes, was im- ΤΡ regard 


to men’s 
peaching them of feigned crimes by false accusation and calumny. estates and 


This sometimes affected men’s lives, and then it was a species ee oe 
of murder, and punished under that denomination, as has been ae his 
shown before, [in the ninth section of the tenth-chapter pre- flattery. 
ceding.] Sometimes it affected their fame and reputation, and 
as such it will be considered hereafter, [in the next chapter.] In 
this place we take it only as affecting men’s estates and fortunes, 
and as an intention by fraud to rob them of their property and 
possessions. In which sense the law sometimes takes calumny 
and false accusation as a species of theft and robbery, and pro- 
scribes it under that title. As appears from that law of Valen- 
tinian and Gratian in the Theodosian Code ®, which joins 
these three sorts of calumny together, viz. ‘ against men’s fame 
and reputation, against their fortunes, and against their lives τ᾿ 
ordering, ‘that whoever impleaded another upon any of these 
three heads should undergo the same penalty as he intended 
to bring upon the party he impeached, if he proved to be a 
false accuser, and did not fairly make out his action.’ Against 
such calumniators, fraudulent informers, and false accusers, 
whose chief aim was in a plausible way, and under pretence of 
legal process, to come at other men’s estates, there are two or 
three whole titles more in the Theodosian Code ®, where such 
accusers and impeachers are called ‘ the bane of human life,’ 
and ‘the common pest of mankind: and they are ordered to 
be prosecuted to the last degree with confiscation and death. 

The ecclesiastical law also enjoins them a severe penance. 
By a canon of the Council of Eliberis δ᾽, ‘he that bears false 


63 Ibid, de Calumniator. 


62 L. g. tit. 1. de Accusation. leg. 
It. (t. 3. p. 15.).... Qui alterius 
famam, fortunas, caput denique et 
sanguinem in judicium devocaverit, 
sciat, sibi impendere congruam pee- 
nam, si quod intenderit, non pro- 
baverit. 


tit. 39. 
(p. 284.)—L. το. tit. 10. de Petition. 
et Delator. legg. 1, 2, 3, 10, 23, &c. 
(pp. 430, seqq.)—Et tit. 12. Si va- 
gum petatur mancipium. (p. 462.) 
64 C, 73. (t. 1. p. 978 b.) Delator 
si quis exstiterit fidelis, et per dela- 


474 The great crimes. 


witness against another, to the loss of his life or liberty, is not 
to be received to communion eyen at his last hour :’ and if it 
was in a lighter cause, as in a pecuniary matter or the like, he 
was ‘to do penance for five years,’ before he was reconciled and 
perfectly restored to the peace of the Church. St. Austin © 
also reckons this sort of calumny among the species of robbery 
and oppression. And the author of the Constitutions, giving 
directions to the bishop what sort of persons he should reject 
from the communion, among others mentions ‘ soldiers, who are 
false accusers, and not content with their wages, but oppress 
the poor.’ 

Adulation and flattery is the reverse of calumny, and yet by 
these means some made a shift by fraudulent arts to get them- 
selves made heirs to dying persons, to the prejudice of those 
who had a more just and real title. To prevent which sort of 
fraud, Valentinian®? made a law ‘ that no ecclesiastical person 
or ascetic (for the fraud was chiefly committed by them) should 
clancularly resort to the houses of dying widows or orphans to 
get their estates, or any legacies to be settled upon them: 
which if they did, they were liable to be prosecuted at law by 
the deceased parties’ next relations: they were to enjoy 
nothing that they had so fraudulently obtained, under pre- 
tence of religion, from any such persons, either by way of 
donation and gift or last will and testament; but the legal 
heirs might make their claim, and set aside all such legacies ; 
or otherwise they were to be confiscated to the public.’ There 
are two laws of Theodosius ® also much to the same purpose. 


tionem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus 
vel interfectus, placuit eum nec in 
fine accipere communionem. Si le- 
vior causa fuerit, intra quinquen- 
nium accipere potuit [4]. poterit] 
communionem. 

65 Ep. 54. [al. 153.] ad Macedon. 
(t. 2. p. 405 b.) Qui contra jus so- 
cietatis humane furtis, rapinis, ca- 
lumniis, oppressionibus, invasioni- 
bus abstulerit, reddenda potius quam 
donanda censemus, &c. 

66 J,. 4. c. 6. See before, the last 
part of n. 32, preceding. 

67 Cod. 'Theod. lib. 16. tit. 2. de 
Kpise. et Cler. leg. 20. (t. 6. p. 48.) 
Ecclesiastici, aut ex ecclesiasticis, 
vel qui continentium se volunt no- 


mine, nuncupari, viduarum ac pu- 
pillarum domos non adeant: sed 
publicis exterminentur judiciis, si 
posthac eos affines earum vel pro- 
pingui putaverint deferendos. Cen- 
semus etiam, ut memorati nihil de 
ejus mulieris, qui si privatim sub 
pretextu religionis adjunxerint, li- 
beralitate quacunque, vel extremo 
judicio possint adipisci, &e.—Vid. 
ibid. leg. 21. (p. 51.) Hi, qui eccle- 
sie, &c. 

68 Ibid. leg. 27. (p. 60.).... Si 
quando diem obierit, nullam eccle- 
siam, nullum clericum, nullum pau- 
perem scribat hzredes : careat nam- 
que necesse est viribus, si quid con- 
tra vetitum circa personas specialiter 


XVI. xii.) 


a 


§ 15. theft, fraud, &e. 475 


The Fathers are so far from complaining of the seeming 
hardship of these laws, that they rather complain of the fraud 
and avarice and rapaciousness of those who gave occasion to 
these pious emperors to make such laws against them. St. 
Ambrose ® says, ‘such men were guilty of violence and in- 
yasion of the rights of others: they made a greater prey of 
widows by their blandishments and flatteries, than others did 
by torments: but it was all one before God, whether a man 
seized the substance of others by force or by circumvention, so 
long as he detained what of right belonged to other men’ In 
like manner St. Jerom7°: “1 am ashamed to say that the idol- 
priests, and stage-players, and horse-racers, and harlots, may 
be left heirs, whilst clerks and monks only are prohibited by 
this law; and that not by perseeuting tyrants, but Christian 


princes. 


comprehensas fuerit a moriente con- 
fectum. Immo si quid ab his mori- 
enti fuerit extortum, nec tacito fidei 
commisso aliquid clericis in fraudem 
venerabilis sanctionis callida arte, 
aut probrosa cujuspiam conhibentia 
deferatur : extorres sint ab omnibus, 
quibus inhiaverant bonis, etc.—Leg. 
28. (p.64.) Legem, que diaconissis 
vel viduis nuper est promulgata, Ne 
quis videlicet clericus, neve sub eccle- 
δὲ. nomine mancipia, supellectilem, 
predam, velut infirmi sexus spoli- 
ator, invaderet, et, remotis affinibus 
ac propinguis, ipse sub pretextu Ca- 
tholice discipline se ageret viventis 
heredem, eatenus animadvertat esse 
revocatam, ut de omnium chartis, si 
jam nota est, auferatur: neque quis- 
quam, aut litigator ea sibi utendum, 
aut judex noverit exsequendum. 
69 Serm. 7. de Clericis, p. 132. 
Serm. 66. Ed. Colon. 1616. ap. Ed. 
ened. deest. |—Vid. int. Serm. Au- 
gustin. Append. Serm. 82. (t. 5. ap- 
end. p. 150 e.) Nemo nos invasionis 
Fle: Augustin. leg. invasores] argu- 
it, violentiz nullus accusat. Quasi 
non interdum majorem predam a 
viduis blandimenta eliciant, quam 
tormenta. Non [8]. nec] interest 
apud Deum, utrum vi, an circum- 
ventione quis res alienas occupet, 
dummodo quoquo pacto tenet ali- 
enum.—Conf, Libr. cont. Symmach. 
[al. Ep. 18.] (t. 2. p. 837 a. n. £4.) 


Neither do I complain of the law, but it grieves me 


(The citation is indistinct, but the 
author seems to allude to the pas- 
sage commencing, Et ubi in moribus 
culpa non deprehenditur, Sc. Ep.) 

70 Ep. 2. [4]. 52.] ad Nepotian. 
(t. 1. p. 258 e.) Pudet dicere: sacer- 
dotes idolorum, mimi, et aurige, et 
scorta hereditates capiunt; solis 
clericis ac monachis hae lege pro- 
hibetur: et non prohibetur a perse- 
cutoribus, sed a princibus Christia- 
nis. Nec de lege conqueror, sed 
doleo cur meruerimus hanc legem. 
Provida severaque legis cautio: et 
tamen nec sic refrenatur avaritia. 
Per fidei commissa legibus illudi- 
mus: et quasi majora sint impera- 
torum scita quam Christi, leges ti- 
memus, et Evangelia contemnimus. 
—Vid. Ep. 3. [al. 60.] ad Eund. 
(ibid. p. 337 d.) Alii nummum ad- 
dant nummo, et in marsupium suf- 
focantes matronarum opes venantur 
obsequiis, etc.—Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. 
(ibid. p. 98 c.) Clerici ipsi.... oscu- 
lantur capita matronarum, et, extenta 
manu, ut benedicere eos putes velle, 
si nescias, pretia accipiant salutandi. 
—Cf. Leon. et Majorian. Novel.8. ad 
calc. Cod. Theod. (t.6. append. p. 37. 
col. sinistr.) .... Cum insidiosa mu- 
nuscula diriguntur, subornantur me- 
dici, qui prava persuadeant, et neg- 
lecti medendi studio fiant alienarum 
cupiditatum ministri. 


476 The great crimes, XVI. xi 


to think we should deserve such a law. The caution of the 
law is provident and severe, and yet our covetousness is not 
restrained thereby. We evade the laws by feoffments in trust: 
and, as if the edicts of emperors were greater than those of 
Christ, we are afraid of their laws, whilst we contemn the 
Gospels.’ 

It is evident by these complaints made by these holy Fa- 
thers, that this fraudulent way of catching at the estates of 
widows, by fawning arts and assentation, (whence these flatter- 
ing hypocrites were commonly called heredipete and capta- 
tores,) was esteemed no less a theft than that which was com- 
mitted by open violence and oppression. This was a scandalous 
sort of theft even among the Heathens: Juvenal7! often spends 
his satirical wit upon it: and so does Martial, and Seneca, and 
Pliny, and Lucian7?, and many others. Which makes it less 
wonder that the Christian laws should proscribe it, and the 
Fathers so sharply inveigh against it, even when it looked like 
a means of augmenting the revenues of the Church. But that 
shows the purity of the ancient discipline, that they would not 
spare a crime that could appear with so fine an aspect; being 
utter enemies to all scandalous and disreputable ways of in- 
creasing the clerical maintenance, as I have had occasion to 
show in several instances 79, in speaking more particularly of 
the revenues of the Church. 


Of deceit- 16. Another sort of fraud is committed in matters of trust, 
age * as when a steward or servant embezzles his master’s goods, or 


makes fraudulent and injurious bargains for him; or when a 
guardian or tutor, who is entrusted with the execution of a 


71 Sat. 5,97. (ap. Corp. Poet. Lat. 
t.2. p. 1148.) 
a eee Sumitur illine 
Quod captator emat Lenas, Aurelia 
vendat. 
Sat. 6, 38. (ibid. p. 1149.) 
Ὥρας Ἃ Tollere duleem 
Cogitat heredem cariturus turture 
magno, 
Mullorumque jubis, et captatore 
macello. 
Sat. 10, 201. (ibid. p. 1158.) 
Usque adeo gravis uxori, natisque, 
sibique, 
Ut captatori moveat fastidia Cosso. 
72 Vid. Calvin. Lexicum Juridi- 
cum, voce Captare. (p. 146. col. 


dextr.) Erant vero Rome, qui senes 
orbos ac locupletes obsequio deme- 
reri studebant, ut ex eorum testa- 
mentis aliquid ferrent, quique etiam 
palam consignatis tabulis eos he- 
redes faciebant, quod ad eandem 
liberalitatem jamjam morituros pro- 
vocarent. Cujusmodi captatoria of- 
ficia ridet Lucianus in _ Dialogis 
Mortuorum, his verbis: “Edofe δέ 
μοι, ait, καὶ σοφὸν τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, θέσθαι 
διαθήκας ἐς τὸ φανερὸν, ἐν αἷς ἐκείνῳ 
καταλέλοιπα τἀμὰ πάντα, ὡς κἀκεῖνος 
ζηλώσας καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πράξειε. 

73 See Ὁ. 5. ch. 4. ss. 13, 14. V. 2. 
pp. 170o—174. 


theft, fraud, Sc. 477 


dead man’s will, acts an unfaithful part, and enriches himselt 
out of what was designed for the maintenance of others; or 
when a man denies, or conceals, or refuses to restore any thing 
that was deposited with him and committed to his trust. The 
Ancients were extremely conscientious in this last instance of 
things committed to their trust, insomuch as that Pliny 7? him- 
self can inform us, ‘ that it was one part of their solemn busi- 
ness every Lord’s-day to bind themselves with a sacrament, or 
an oath, not to commit any wickedness, theft, robbery, adul- 
tery ; not to falsify their word; not to deny any thing where- 
with they were intrusted, when they were required to deliver 
it up again.’ And therefore we may reasonably conclude, that 
no one was thought qualified for communion in such a society 
who was guilty of breach of faith in any such trust, which was 
both against the laws of common justice and his own solemn 
engagement. 

Some trusts were of a more sacred nature, being designed 
for the service of God and the poor, an unfaithfulness in such 
trusts was therefore reckoned a double and a triple crime, 
because it added, as it were, murder and sacrilege to the in- 
justice. Upon this account the fourth Council of Carthage74 
calls those, who endeavour to defraud the Church of such 
legacies or oblations as were left her by the dead, murderers 
of the poor ; because their robbing the Church of that which 
was given for the maintenance of the poor was in effect to 
starve and famish the poor: and for such fraud and cruelty 
they are subjected to the censure of excommunication. Among 
the Epistles of Cyprian there is a letter of Cornelius7>, bishop 
of Rome, to Cyprian, giving him an account of one Nicostratus, 
a deacon, whom he charges with this sort of fraud: for he 
had not only cheated his temporal patroness, whose affairs he 
managed, but had carried away a great part of the revenues of 
the Church, which was entrusted with him as archdeacon for the 


73 Lib. το. Ep. 97.*(p. 278.) .... 
Seque sacramento non in scelus 
aliquid obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 
latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, 
ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum ap- 
pellati abnegarent. 

74 C. 95. See before, 8. 9. ἢ. 26, 
preceding. 

75 Ep. 48. [4]. 50.] (p. 236.) In- 


vigiletur, ergo ut omnibus coepisco- 
pis nostris et fratribus innotescat, 
Nicostratum multorum criminum 
reum, et non solum patrone suze 
carnali, cujus rationes gessit, fraudes 
et rapinas fecisse; verum etiam, 
quod est illi ad perpetuam ponam 
reservatum, ecclesiz deposita non 
modica abstulisse. 


478 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


maintenance of poor widows and orphans ; for which crime he 
was forced to fly from Rome, for fear of being called to give an 
account of lis rapine and sacrilege. And Cyprian himself in 
another Epistle7®, giving an account to Cornelius of the wicked- 
ness of Novatus, says, ‘he had defrauded the widows and 
orphans, and denied the Church’s revenues which were en- 
trusted with him: for which, and many other crimes, as stary- 
ing his own father, and causing his wife by a sudden blow to 
miscarry, he had certainly been removed not only from his 
seat in the presbytery, but from all communion with the 
Church, had not the approach of a fierce persecution put a 
stop to his trial and condemnation.’ By which it appears that 
there was no crime more heinously resented than this of un- 
faithfulness in trust, nor any more severely pursued and 
punished by the censures of the Church. 


Of deceit- 17. The last sort of fraud is that which is committed in traffic 
ag ™ and commerce, between buyer and seller. The buyer may be 


guilty either in taking advantage of the ignorance of the 
seller, when he knows not the true value of his own goods; or 
in taking advantage of his necessity, when his poverty compels 
him to sell at an under-rate; or in paying him in false and 
corrupt coin, which is the same thing as defrauding him in the 
original contract. This last sort of fraud was severely punished 
by the Roman laws, both Heathen and Christian: for the 
vender, as well as the forger of false coin, is condemned in all 
the penalties of fraud, recounted in the Pandects77. And Con- 


76 Ep. 49. [4]. 52.] ad Cornel. 
p- 97. (p. 238.) Spoliati ab illo pu- 
pilli, fraudate viduee, pecuniz quo- 
que ecclesize denegate, has de illo 
exigunt pcenas, quas in ejus furore 
conspicimus. Pater etiam ejus in 
vico fame mortuus, et ab eo in morte 
postmodum nec sepultus. Uterus 
uxoris calce percussus, et abortione 
properante in parricidium partus ex- 
pressus.... Hance conscientiam cri- 
minum jam pridem timebat; propter 
hoe se non de presbyterio excitari 
tantum, sed et communicatione pro- 
hiberi pro certo tenebat; et urgenti- 
bus fratribus imminebat cognitionis 
dies, quo apud nos causa ejus age- 
retur, nisi persecutio ante venisset. 

7 Digest. 1. 13. tit. 7. de Pigno- 


ratitia Actione, leg. 1. (t. 1. p. 1392.) 
Pignus contrahitur non sola tradi- 
tione, sed etiam nuda conventione, 
etsi non traditum est. 1. Si igitur 
contractum sit pignus nuda con- 
ventione, videamus, an, si quis au- 
rum ostenderit, quasi pignori datu- 
rus, et zs dederit, obligaverit aurum 
pignori? Et consequens est, ut au- 
rum obligetur, non autem es: quia 
in hoc non consenserint. 2. Si quis 
tamen, cum es pignori daret, affir- 
mavit hoc aurum esse, et ita pignori 
dederit, videndum erit, an zs pignori 
obligaverit: et numquid, quia in 
corpus consensum est, pignori esse 
videatur? quod magis est: tenebi- 
tur tamen pignoratitia contraria 
actione, qui dedit, preter stelliona- 


theft, fraud, &c. 


stantine made it a capital crime7%, not only for any one to 
adulterate, or clip, or diminish the coin, but also to pass any 
such away knowingly in payment to others, to put a wilful 
cheat upon them. And though this be not expressly and par- 
ticularly specified in the ecclesiastical law, yet being a principal 
fraud, it must be comprehended under the general titles of frauds, 
which came under the cognizance of the spiritual jurisdiction. 
For fraud was always reckoned a crime of the first magnitude ; 
St. Austin’? puts it in the same class with murder, adultery, 
fornication, theft, and sacrilege: and Tertullian 80. joins it with 
the great sins of blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy, murder, and 
adultery, which defile the temple of God, and unqualify men 
for Christian communion. 

As to the buyer’s overreaching the seller, by taking advan- 
tage of his ignorance or unskilfulness in the just value of his 
commodity, this being a thing not easy to be discovered or 
proved, it may be supposed to be a fraud rather left to his own 
conscience, than ordinarily brought under public discipline. Yet 
certain it is, a conscientious man will not load his soul even 


479 


with this guilt. 


tum, quem fecit.—L. 48. tit. το. ad 
Legem Corneliam de Falso, leg. 9. 
(t. 3. p. 1479.) Lege Cornelia cave- 
tur, ut qui in aurum vitii quid addi- 
derit, qui argenteos nummos adulte- 
rinos flaverit, falsi crimine teneri, 
&c.—lbid. n. 2. (p. 1480.) Eadem 
lege exprimitur, ne quis nummos 
stagneos, plumbeos, emere, vendere, 
dolo malo vellet. 

78 Cod. Theod. lib. 9. tit. 22. Si 
quis solidi circulum inciderit, vel 
adulteratum in vendendo subjecerit, 
leg. 1. (t. 3. p. 181.) .... Capite pu- 
niri debet, aut flammis tradi, vel alia 
pena mortifera, si quis mensuram 
circuli exterioris arraserit, vel figu- 
ratum solidum adultera imitatione 
in vendendo subjecerit. 

79 Tractat. 41. in Ioan. t.g. p. 126. 
See before, s. 4, the second part of 
n. 8, preceding. 

80 De Pudicit. c. 19. (p. 582 b.) 
Sunt autem et contraria istis [delic- 
tis quotidiane incursionis] ut gravi- 
ora et exitiosa, que veniam non 
capiant, homicidium, _ idololatria, 
fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et 


St. Austin®! gives a rare instance of singular 


meechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia 
violatio templi Dei.—Advers. Mar- 
cion. 1. 4. c.9. (p. 419 d.) Si autem 
Heliszus, prophetes Creatoris, uni- 
cum leprosum Naaman Syrum ex 
tot leprosis Israelitis emundavit, nec 
hee ad diversitatem facit Christi; 
quasi hoc modo melioris, dum Israel- 
item leprosum emundavit extraneus, 
quem suus dominus emundare non 
voluerat [al. valuerat]; Syro facilius 
emundato, significato per nationes 
emundationis in Christo lumine 
earum, que septem maculis capita- 
lium delictorum inhorrerent, idolo- 
latria, blasphemia, homicidio, adul- 
terio, stupro, falso testimonio, frau- 


e. 

81 De Trinit. 1. 13. c. 3. (t. 8. p. 
30 f.) Et minus quidem 1116 vel se 
ipsum intuendo, vel alios quoque 
experiendo, vili velle emere et caro 
vendere, omnibus id credidit esse 
commune .... Scio ipse hominem, 
cum venalis codex ei fuisset obla- 
tus, ΠΝ ejus ignarum et ideo 
quiddam exiguum poscentem cer- 
neret venditorem, justum pretium 


480 XVI. xii. 


The great crimes, 


justice in this case. He says, he knew a man, who, having a 
book offered him to be sold at an under-rate by one who un- 
derstood not the true value of it, gave him the just price of it; 
surprising him by an uncommon generosity and equity, which 
allows no man to take advantage of another’s ignorance ; 
though it be against the general maxim of the world, which 
loves to buy cheap and sell dear, (as the mimic said, when he 
undertook to divine and tell all men their wishes,) whatever 
evil consequences may attend it. 

On the other hand, fraud may be committed also by the 
seller, and that several ways; either by over-rating the com- 
modity to the ignorant and necessitous buyer, which is also ex- 
tortion and oppression; or by vending corrupt wares, which 
are not really and truly what they are said or appear to be, 
which is a fraud in the quality; or by using false weights and 
measures, which is a fraud in the quantity of the thing con- 
tracted for, and which is commonly branded with this note in 
Scripture, that “it is an abomination to the Lord.” 

The old Roman laws *? were exceeding careful about this 
matter of just weights and measures; the ediles were obliged 
to examine them; the standards of both were religiously kept 
in the Capitol; and thence, afterward, in Christian times, they 
were removed and placed under the custody of bishops in the 
churches, as appears from Justinian’s Pragmatic Sanction 88, 
and one of his Novels*, to this purpose. Every city and man- 
sion, or place of custom, had likewise their public standards, as 
well to prevent the frauds of the exactors of tribute, as those 
of others in private contracts one with another. To which pur- 


quod multo amplius erat, nec opi- 
nanti dedisse. 


lesionis provinciarum nascatur oc- 
casio, jubemus in illis mensuris vel 


82 Vid. Digest. 1. 48. tit. 10. ad 
Legem Corneliam de Falso, leg. 32. 
(t. 3. p. 1492.)....Si venditor men- 
suras publice probatas vini, fru- 
menti, vel cujuslibet rei, aut emptor 
corruperit, dolove malo fraudem fe- 
cerit ; quanti ea res est, ejus dupli 
condemnatur : decretoque divi Ha- 
driani preceptum est, in insulam 
eos relegari, qui pondera aut men- 
suras falsassent. 

83 C. το. (ad calc. Novell. ap. 
Corp. Jur. Civ. Amstel. 1663. t. 2. 
Ρ. 236.) Ut autem nulla fraudis vel 


ponderibus species vel pecunias dari 
vel suscipi, que beatissimo pape 
vel amplissimo senatui nostra Pie- 
tas in presenti contradidit. 

84 Novel. 128. c. 15. (t. 5. p. 575-) 
Eos autem, qui publica tributa exi- 
gunt, istis ponderibus, et mensuris 
uti precipimus: ut neque in hoc 
nostros tributarios ledant. Si au- 
tem collatores putant gravari se sive 
in mensuris, sive in ponderibus, ha- 
beant licentiam specierum quidem 
mensuras et pondera a gloriosissi- 
mis prefectis, &c. 


§ 17. 


theft, fraud, Sc. 


481 


pose there are several laws of Theodosius*>, and Honorius*®, 
and Valentinian III87, and Majorian $$, in the Theodosian Code : 
and very severe and capital punishments are there appointed 
for all such as were found guilty of fraud in altering or cor- 


rupting the public standard. 


The Church has not many particular laws about this in her 
discipline: but it being a flagrant crime in the eye of the State, 
we may presume she punished offenders in this kind, by the 
general laws against fraud, without specifying all particular 


85 Cod. Theod. 1. 12. tit. 6. de 
Susceptoribus, leg. 19. (t. 4. p. 551.) 
In singulis stationibus et mensure 
et pondera publice collocentur, ut 
fraudare cupientibus fraudandi adi- 
mant potestatem. — Leg. 21. (ibid. 
P- 552.) Modios zneos seu lapideos, 
cum sextarlis atque ponderibus per 
mansiones singulas, quasque civi- 
tates, jussimus collocari, ut unus- 
quisque tributarius, sub oculis con- 
stitutis rerum omnium modis, sciat 
quid debeat susceptoribus dare, &c. 

86 Τ 11. tit. 7. de Superexactio- 
nibus, leg. 3. (p. 84.) Velut licito 
committi, frequenti lesorum deplo- 
ratione didicimus, ut majoribus sub- 
jectis mensuris atque ponderibus 
gravi possessor damno quatiatur : 
jubemus, ut cura et solertia defen- 
sorum hoc fieri a susceptoribus non 
sinant, deprehensosque ad judicium 
dirigant, cum ipso fraudis commiss 
indicio idem fieri notum est, &c. 

87 L. 12. tit. 6. de Susceptoribus, 
leg. 32. (p. 561.) Aurum sive argen- 
tum quumque [1i. 6. quandocunque | 
a possessore confertur, arcarius vel 
susceptor accipiat: ita ut provincie 
moderator ejusque officium ad cri- 
men suum noverit pertinere, si pos- 
sessoribus ullum fuerit ex aliqua 
ponderum iniquitate illatum dis- 
pendium, &c.—Novel. Valentin. et 
Theod. 25. de Pretio Solidi, ad calc. 
Cod. Theod, (t. 6. append. p. 13. ad 
summ.) De ponderibus quoque, ut 
fraus penitus amputetur a nobis 
aguntur exagia, que sub intermina- 
tione superius comprehensa sine 
fraude debeant custodiri. 

88 Novel. 1. ad calc. Cod. Theod. 
(t. 6. append. p. 33. col. sinistr.) 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


Illis quoque fraudibus obviandum 
est, quas in varietate ponderum ex- 
actorum calliditas facere consuevit, 
qui, vetustis caliginibus abutentes, 
Faustine aliorumque nominum ne- 
scientibus faciant mentionem. Qui- 
bus penitus amotis, atque in perpe- 
tuum hac lege damnatis, a pretori- 
ana sede ad singulas non solum 
provincias, sed etiam civitates pon- 
dera examinata mittantur: quibus 
tam omnis exactor quam negotiator 
utatur, capitale sibi sciens unus- 
quisque supplicium, si constituta 
transcenderit.—Conf. Sidon. Apol- 
linar. 1. 5. Ep. 7. (p. 327.) Hi sunt 
qui invident arcarils pondera, 
mensuras allectis.—Cassiodor. 1. 5. 
Ep. 39. (Ὁ. 1. p. 86. col. sinistr.) 
Exigentes assem publicum per gra- 
vamina ponderum, premere dicuntur 
patrimonia possessorum: ut non 
tam exactio, quam preeda esse vide- 
atur. Sed, ut totius fraudis abroge- 
tur occasio, ad libram cubiculi nos- 
tri, que vobis in presenti data est, 
universas functiones publicas jube- 
mus inferri. Quid enim tam nefa- 
rium, quam presumptoribus liceat 
in ipsa etiam trutinz qualitate pec- 
care?—L, 11. Ep. 16. (t. 1. p. 169. 
col. sinistr.) Initium a libra facie- 
mus, quia ubi conscientiam fas est 
intendere, inde debet sermo judicis 
inchoare. Hine est, quod in pon- 
deribus atque mensuris vos sugge- 
ritis ingravatos: et ideo nostra cura 
providebit, ut nullius vos ulterius 
ex ea parte vexare possit iniquitas. 
Quia grave scelus esse judicamus, 
aut mensuras modum excedere, aut 
libram zquissimi ponderis justitiam 
non habere. 


Il 


ee eee 


482 


The great crimes, XVI. xii. 


cases. The author of the Constitutions 59 gives a general rule 
about this matter, when he orders the bishop to reject the 
oblations of all such as were noted by the common name of 
ῥᾳδιουργοὶ, fraudulent dealers: and he more particularly 
marks the δολομέτραι, those that used fraud in measures, and 
the ὠγοκροῦσται, that is, such as though they did not use false 
weights, and balances of deceit, yet used a more sly art and 
fraud in giving a turn to the scale with their fingers, to gain 
that by artifice and sleight of hand in weighing, which they 
durst not venture to do by false weights. Constantine also 
takes notice of this fraud in one of his laws 2°, where he forbids 
the receivers of tribute to use any art with their fingers ‘ to 
press down the scale, but to be exact in poismg and libration, 
that no one might complain of any injustice done him.’ And it 
is observable, that Julian®!, to prevent such frauds in weigh- 
ing, appointed a standing officer in every city, whom he calls 
by a Greek name zygostates, that is, the public weigher, or 
supervisor of the scale, who was to determine all controversies 
arising about weight between buyer and seller, and put an end 
to them by examining what was suspected by the public stand- 
ard. And the care of an Heathen emperor to correct frauds 
and abuses of this nature, made it more reasonable for the 
Church to look into them, and bring delinquents of this kind 
under penance by the power of ecclesiastical censure. 

The author of the Constitutions likewise takes notice of the 
other sort of fraud, which may be committed in traffic by dis- 
sembling the ill qualities of things, and vending corrupt wares, 
under the notion and appearance of that which is perfect and- 
good. As when a man puts off brass for gold, or a mixture of 
water or other liquor for pure wine. Therefore in his direc- 
tions to the bishop 9, whose oblations he shall receive, and whose 


89). 42 °c: ΟΣ 


See before, s. 9. 
p- 463. n. 32. 


paribus suspenso statere momentis. 
9 Thid. leg. 2. (p. 566.) ... Ideo- 


+0 al 


9 Cod. Theod. lib. 12. tit. 7. de 
Ponderatoribus, leg. 1. (t. 4. p. 562.) 
.. .Aurum vero, quod infertur, equa 
lance et libramentis paribus susci- 
piatur: scilicet, ut duobus digitis 
summitas lini retineatur, tres reliqui 
liberi ad susceptorem emineant, nec 
pondera deprimant, nullo examinis 
libramento servato, nec zquis ac 


que placet, quem sermo Greecus ap- 
pellat, per singulas civitates consti- 
tui zygostaten, ut ad ejus arbitrium 
et ad ejus fidem, si qua inter ven- 
dentem emptoremque in solidis ex- 
orta fuerit contentio, dirimatur. 

92 [Constit. Apost. 1. 4. ς. 6. See 
before, b. 15. ch. 2. 8. 2. V. 5. p. 234. 
n. 39, and ibid. nn. 40, 41, 42. Ep.] 


§ 17. 


theft, fraud, §e. 485 


refuse at the altar, he says, ‘in the first place, he shall reject 
those whom the Greeks call κάπηλοι, and the Latins caupones; 
by which he does not mean victuallers strictly, or merchants, 
or tradesmen in general; though the words be sometimes so 
taken ; but fraudulent hucksters, who corrupt and adulterate 
their wares, to make the greater gain and advantage of them. 
As appears from that passage, which, according to the Septua- 
gint, he quotes out of Isaiah, (1, 22.) Οἱ κάπηλοί cov μίσγουσι 
τὸν olvov τῷ ὕδατι, Thy hucksters mingle wine with water. 
Lactantius® argues this point acutely against Carneades, the 
Heathen philosopher, who taught, ‘ that if a man has a fugitive 
slave, or an infected and pestilential house, which he sets to 
sale, he is bound in prudence not to discover their faults : be- 
cause if he does, he shall either sell them for little or not at 
all.” This he calls poisonous doctrine, and shows it at large to 
be both against the rules of Christian justice and prudence 
also: for nothing can be more valuable to a man than keeping 
innocence and good conscience. Upon this account St. Hilary 
says, whoever either designs, or commits fornication, or mur- 
der, or theft, or fraud, or rapine, makes his body a den of 
thieves. Some of the Ancients2>, indeed, are a little more se- 
vere against negotiating in any trade, except a manual art, for 
gain, because of the danger of fraud, that sticks so close be- 
tween buying and selling: but Pope Leo%® more favourably 
distinguishes between honest and filthy gain, and says the 
quality of the gain either excuses or condemns the tradesman. 
So thatit was not all trade and merchandize that they con- 


demned as simply unlawful in 


%3 Institut. 1.5. ec. 17. et 18. tot. 
(t. 1. pp. 402, seqq.) Quod ad pre- 
sentem disputationem, &c. 

94 In Ps. 118. [al. 119.] v. 139. 
p. 278. (t. 1. p. 393 a. n. 3.) 
Corpora, cum cogitamus aut agimus 
stupra, cedes, furta, falsitates, ra- 
pinas, speluncam latronum consti- 
tuimus. 

% Vid. Tertul. de Idolol. ec. 11. 
(p. 91 6.) Negotiatio servo Dei apta 
est ὃ Ceeterum si cupiditas abscedat, 
que est causa acquirendi? cessante 
causa one πῆμ τνὸ non erit necessitas 
negotiandi.—Epiphan. Expos. Fid. 
n. 24. (τ. 1. p. 1107 b.) Πραγματευ- 
τὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχεται, ἀλλὰ ὑποδεεστέ- 


itself, but only when it was ac- 


ρους πάντων nyetrar.—Auct. Op. Im- 
perfect. in Matth. 21. 12. (int. Oper. 
Chrysost. t. 6. p. 159 e.) Et ejiciebat 
vendentes et ementes de templo: Sig- 
nificans, quia homo mercator vix aut 
nunquam potest Deo placere. Et 
ideo nullus Christianus debet esse 
mercator : aut si voluerit esse, pro- 
jiciatur de ecclesia Dei, dicente Pro- 
pheta, Quia non cognovi negotiatio- 
nes, introibo in potentia Domini. 

% Ep. 93. ad Rustic. c.g. (CC. 

Ep. 92. c. 11.] Ὁ 3. p. 1407 d.) 

ualitas lucri negotiantem aut ex- 
cusat aut arguit: quia est honestus 
quiestns aut turpis. 


112 


484 XVI. xi. 


The great crimes, 


companied with such fraudulent practices, as made it an un- 
conscionable gain, and no better than a plausible theft, and 
more artificial way of robbery. 

The last sort of fraud in the seller is committed by over- 
rating his commodity; which is done either by monopolizers, 
when a single man, or a body of men, get the sole power and 
propriety of any commodity into their own hands, and set 
what arbitrary price they please upon it; or when the seller 
takes the advantage of the ignorance or necessity of the buyer 
to enhance his price, and make a gain of his weakness, his 
poverty, or his indiscretion. Against the fraud of monopolizers 
there is a famous law of the Emperor Zeno in the Justinian 
Code 97, where he first forbids ‘ any single man to monopolize 
any wares under the penalty of confiscation of all his goods, 
and perpetual banishment of his person: and then proceeds 
to inhibit ‘any body of men to combine in any unlawful con- 
tract not to sell their goods but at a certain rate, under the 
penalty of forfeiting forty pounds of gold.’ He likewise pro- 
hibits ‘ all artificers and workmen from combining among 
themselves, that if any one undertook a work for another 
man and left it unfinished, no one of the same occupation 
should meddle with it to finish it without the consent of the 
first undertaker ;’ which was an art of raising their labour to 
what arbitrary price they were pleased to set upon it. To 
obviate which fraud, and the difficulty which honest men 


97 L. 4. tit. 59. de Monopoliis, 
leg. 1. (t. 4. p. 1069.) Jubemus, ne 
quis cujuscunque vestis, vel piscis, 
vel pectinum forte, aut echini, vel 
cujuslibet alterius ad victum, vel ad 
quemcunque usum pertinentis spe- 
ciei, vel cujuslibet materi, pro sua 
auctoritate, vel sacro jam elicito, aut 
in posterum eliciendo rescripto, aut 
pragmatica sanctione, vel sacra nos- 
tre pietatis annotatione, monopo- 
lium audeat exercere: neve quis 
ilicitis habitis conventionibus con- 
juret aut paciscatur, Ne species di- 
versorum corporum negotiationis non 
minoris quam inter se statuerint ve- 
nundentur. A dificiorum quoque ar- 
tifices, vel ergolabi, aliorumque di- 
versorum operum professores, et 
balneatores, penitus arceantur pacta 


inter se componere, Ut ne quis quod 
altert commissum sit opus impleat, 
aut injunctam alteri solicitudinem 
alter intercipiat: data licentia uni- 
cuique, ab altero inchoatum et dere- 
lictum opus per alterum sine aliquo 
timore dispendii implere, omniaque 
hujusmodi facinora denuntiandi sine 
ulla formidine et sine judiciariis 
sumptibus. Si quis autem mono- 
polium ausus fuerit exercere, bonis 
propriis exspoliatus, perpetuitate 
damnetur exsilii, Caeterarum pro- 
fessionum primates, si in posterum 
aut super taxandis rerum pretiis, 
aut super quibuslibet illicitis placi- 
tis, ausi fuerint convenientes hujus- 
modi sese pactis constringere, qua- 
draginta librarum auri_ solutione 
percelli decernimus. 


§ 17, 18. theft, fraud, Sc. 485 


thereby lay under, he dissolved all such unlawful contracts 
and combinations, and left men at perfect liberty, when they 
were deserted by one workman, to employ another, without 
any fear or molestation arising from the pretence of any pre- 
engagement. 

The other way of enhancing the price, by the seller’s taking 
advantage of the buyer’s ignorance or indiscretion, is what no 
laws could well provide against in all cases: and therefore it 
was rather left to the equity and conscience of men, to be 
examined and judged by the divine law, than brought under 
any certain rules of human judgment. However, being a spe- 
cies of fraud and extortion and oppression, it is probable the 
governors of the Church took occasion in many notorious cases 
to condemn it, under the general title of ῥαδιουργία, that base 
craft and gain that is gotten by imposture in any kind, for 
which the bishop in the Constitutions 95 is required to debar 
men from making their oblations at the altar. 

And to this head may be reduced the selling of that to 

which the seller himself has no just title; as the selling of 
fugitive slaves belonging to another master, which the law 
forbids 9°, both because it is a sort of plagiary in the seller, 
and an imposition upon the buyer, and an encouragement to 
the slaves to rob and pillage and desert their proper masters. 
Such is also the selling things of no real worth, but a mere 
fraud and imposture; as the taking money for calculating na- 
tivities, and telling of fortunes, and divining for things lost, 
and many the like vain practices which the canons condemn, 
not only as curious and superstitious arts, but as fraudulent} 
and cheating tricks, imposing upon men by cozenage and im- 
posture. Ali which, and a thousand other ways of pillaging, 
oppressing, and defrauding, the Church in her discipline cen- 
sured as direct methods of committing theft and robbery. 

18. But besides the direct ways of committing this sin, there Of abetting 
were seyeral other base and disallowable practices, which vir- present 
tually and by just construction might be interpreted theft, as bers; and 
the harbouring, abetting, and concealing robbers; buying of Σ 


9 L. 4. c.6. See before, 8. 9. (t. 4. p. 2380. ad calc.) In fuga 
n. 32. p. 463.—See also, b. 15. ae servum constitutum neque vendere, 
2. 8. 2. V. 5. Pp. 234. 1. Ὁ pas ν- donare licet: &c. 

9 Cod. Justin. 1.9. tit. 20. ad Vid. C. Trull. c.61. See before, 
Legem Fabiam de Plagiariis, leg. 6. ch. 5. s. 6. p. 258. nn. I, 2. 


486 The great crimes, AVL. xi: 


stolen 


stolen goods; leading an idle life, without any lawful vocation ; 
goods, &c. 


spending in prodigality or unlawful gaming that which was 
designed for the maintenance of others: all which either the 
laws of Church or State censured as so many indirect ways of 
encouraging or committing robbery. 

The laws of the State laid a severe penalty upon all that 
sheltered any criminals in any kind whatsoever. Valentinian 
in one law 2 condemns them as associates with the criminals, and 
makes them lable to the same punishment. In another law? 
he particularly condemns such as harbour robbers, and screen 
them from public justice; making them liable either to corporal 
punishment or confiscation of all their goods, according to the 
quality of their persons. And if any agent or steward sheltered 
them without his lord’s knowledge, he was to be burnt alive. 
There is another law of Marcian to the same effect in the 
Justinian Code*, showing how men are to be treated who 
entertain robbers, and use force to protect and defend them. 

They who bought stolen goods, knowing them to be such, 
were also deemed guilty of partaking in the theft, because this 
was an encouragement to robbers, and a sort of approbation of 


them. 


2 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 29. leg. 1. 
(t. 3. p. 221.) Eos, qui secum alieni 
criminis reos occulendo sociarunt, 
par atque ipsos reos pcena exspectet. 

3 Ibid. leg. 2. (p. 222.) Latrones 
quisquis sciens susceperit, vel of- 
ferre judiciis supersederit, supplicio 
corporali, aut dispendio facultatum, 
pro qualitate persone ex judicis 
estimatione plectatur. Si vero ac- 
tor, sive procurator domino igno- 
rante occultaverit, et judici offerre 
neglexerit, flammis ultricibus con- 
cremetur. 

4 L. 9. tit. 39. De his, qui Jatrones 
occultaverint, leg 2. (t. 4. p. 2424.) 
Si qui latrones, seu aliis criminibus 
obnoxii, in possessione degunt seu 
latitant: dominus possessionis si 
presto est, aut procuratores, sl 
dominus abest, seu primates pos- 
sessionis ultro eos offerant: aut 5] 
scientes hoc sponte non fecerint, 
conyeniantur a civili officio, ut tra- 
dant provinciali judicio eos, qui re- 


St. Austin® and St. Chrysostom © 


make this remark 


quiruntur, sub examine judicis ar- 
guendos, et poenas post documenta 
congruas subituros. Si vero exhi- 
bere eos domini, vel procuratores, 
aut primates possessionis distule- 
rint ; tunc ad detinendos eos, {adito} 
rectore provinciz, omnia civilia diri- 
gantur auxilia. 

5 In Ps. 49. t.8. p.194. In Verb. 
Si videbas furem, concurrebas ei, 
ete. (t. 4. p. 458 b.) Ne forte dice- 
res, Non feci furtum, non feci adul- 
terlum. Quid si placuit tibi, qui 
fecit? Nonne ipso placito concur- 
risti? Nonne portionem tuam cum 
illo, qui fecit, laudando posuisti? 
Hoc est enim, fratres, concurrere 
cum fure, et ponere cum adultero 
portionem tuam *: quia etsi non fa- 
cis, et landas quod fit, adstipulator es 
facti, quoniam laudatur peccator in 
desideriis anime suz, et, qui iniqua 
gerit, benedicitur. Non facis mala, 
laudas mala facientes. 

® In loc. eund. t. 3. p. 301. (t. 5 


* [Ei ἐθεώρεις κλέπτην, συνέτρεχες αὐτῶ skal μετὰ μοιχῶν τὴν μερίδα σου ἐτίθεις. 


Vid. Septuagint. En.) 


§ 18, 19. 


theft, fraud, Sc. 487 


upon those words of the Psalmist, [50, 18.] ‘“‘ When thou 
sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him;” ‘that to show a 
liking to the thief, is the same thing as committing the rob- 
bery.’ And certainly none can show a greater liking to him 
than he, who for a little filthy lucre gives encouragement to 
him, by trafficking and negotiating with him, as some critics 
observe the Arabic translation literally renders the phrase of 
the Psalmist. There is but one case in which the casuists 
allow men to buy of a known thief, and that is when he can 
do it for a small matter with an intent to restore what is 
stolen to the true owner: for in that case he intends not the 
encouragement of the thief. but the interest and advantage of 
the just proprietor: and for this they allege? the known 
rules of the civil law. But in all other cases to negotiate with 
thieves is to partake of their sin, and to encourage and 
strengthen them in their subsequent villanies. Therefore this 
and all other ways of partaking and co-operating with thieves, 
of which there are various methods noted and summed up by 
the doctors * in the schools 9, were anciently computed in the 
general account of theft and fraud, and accordingly punished 
with ecclesiastical censure. 

19. Neither was it only the associating and partaking with 
robbers which they thus condemned, but all such unlawful 
vocations, or rather want of vocation, as put men in a manner 
upon the necessity of stealing, and having recourse to fraud 


P- 235 b.) Τοῦτο πάντων αἴτιον τῶν 
κακῶν᾽ τοῦτο μάλιστά ἐστι τὸ ἀνα- 
τρέπον ἀρετὴν, τὸ ἐκλύον τὴν περὶ τὰ 
καλὰ τῶν πολλῶν σπουδὴν, ὅταν μὴ 
μόνον μὴ ἐπιτιμῶσί τινες, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
συνήδωνται τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι τοῦτο 
τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν οὐκ ἔλαττον. 

7 Vid. Lessium, De Jure et Justit. 
1.2. c.14. dubitat. 4. p.171. (p. 156.) 
Utrum si dubites, an res sit aliena, 


tat, utrum res sit aliena, potest ni- 
hilominus eam accipere titulo dona- 
tionis, permutationis, emptionis,etc., 
modo eo animo accipiat, ut eam do- 
mino, si post diligentem inquisitio- 
nem invenerit, restituat. Ratio est, 
quia in hoe nullam facit domino 


injuriam, sed beneficium ; nam alio- 
quin fortassis nunquam fuisset re- 
stituenda. 
8 Vid. Aquinat. quest. 62. art. 
7. (t. 22. pp. 270, seqq.) In multis 
Lie etiam is, 41 per se non 
fecit rei ablationem, tenetur tamen 
ipsi damnificato ad rei ablate resti- 
tutionem, etc. [The whole Question 
is De Restitutione: but I cannot 
find the words, as cited, in the 
Venice Edition of 1748, which I 
have consulted. Ep.] 
9 Aquinas, ibid. (t. 22. p. 270.) 
Jussio, consilium, consensus, palpo, 
recursus, 
Participans, mutus, non obstans, 
non manifestans. 


Idleness 

censured as 
the mother 
of robbery. 


488 The great crimes, XVI. xi. 


and violence as the only support of a dissolute life. Idleness 
they esteemed the mother and nurse of theft, and a life with- 
out employment as no better than that of a common robber: 
because men of that character were only fruges consumere 
nati, born to devour that which of right belonged to others. 
Therefore the laws both of Church and State are very severe 
against all such. 

There is a law of Valentinian Junior, in the Theodosian 
Code 10, against young, stout, lusty beggars, who being slaves 
or freedmen able to work, yet fled from their masters to Rome, 
to skulk in corners, and live as drones upon false charity: 
whom he orders ‘ to be examined, and if they were found able 
to work they should either become the possession of the in- 
former who discovered them, or be returned to their original 
masters, who had a good action in law against any who either 
harboured such fugitives, or by their counsels instigated them 
to desertion.’ Justinian inserted this law into his Code 11 like- 
wise, and set forth a new edict}2 of his own to the same 
purpose. 

The Church also was very careful in this matter, not to 
suffer stout idle wandering beggars to devour the revenues 
of those that were really infirm and poor. Upon this ac- 
count she forbad any of her clergy to rove about the world, 
or wander from one diocese to another without letters dimis- 
sory, as some did, under the scandalous name of βακάντιβοι, 
men out of business, as I have had occasion to show more 
fully in another place’. She obliged all her monks and men 
of the ascetic life to live upon their own labour. Insomuch 
that a monk, who did not work, was looked upon as a thief 


10L. 14. tit. 18. de Mendicanti- 
bus non invalidis, leg. 1. (t. 5. p. 
256.) Cunctis affatim .... inspectis, 
exploretur in singulis et integritas 
corporum et robur annorum : adque 
ea inertibus, et absque ulla debilitate 
miserandis, necessitas inferatur, ut 
eorum quidem, quos tenet conditio 
servilis, proditor studiosus et dili- 
gens dominium consequatur : eorum 
vero, quos natalium sola libertas 
prosequitur, colonatu perpetuo ful- 
ciatur, quisquis hujusmodi lenitudi- 
nem prodiderit ac probaverit: salva 


dominis actione in eos, qui vel late- 
bram forte fugitivo, vel mendicitatis 
subeunde consilium prestiterunt. 

1 L.11. tit. 25. de Mendicantibus 
validis, leg. 1. (t. 5. p. 148.) Cunctis, 
quos in publicum questum incerta 
mendicitas vocaverit, &c. [Nearly 
in the same words as the preceding 
note. Ep.] 

12 [Novel. 80. 6. 5. (t. 5. p. 369.) 
Si vero hujus terre fuerint, et cor- 
poribus quidem validis utantur, &e. 
Ep. | 

3 B. 6. ch. 4. 8} 5. v. 2. p. 270. 


§ 19. 


theft, fraud, Se. 489 


and a defrauder, as Socrates'™ tells us the Egyptian fathers 
were used to express themselves concerning such as eat other 
men’s bread for nought. St. Austin wrote a whole Book?> to 
prove this to be the proper duty of a monk, to live upon his 
own labour, where he answers all objections that can be made 
to the contrary. And there are innumerable passages in other 
ancient writers upon the same topic, to which I have referred 
the reader in discoursing upon the rules of the monastic life 16 
in a former Book. 

Here I shall only add one noted passage of St. Ambrose, 
where he gives rules and directions for dispensing charity with 
prudence only to such as really want it. ‘ There ought to be,’ 
says he17, ‘a due measure observed in liberality, that our 
charity be not useless: and this moderation is chiefly to be 
regarded by bishops and priests, that they do not dispense the 
Church’s treasure to importunate beggars, but as the justice 
and necessity of the case requires: for none are commonly 
more greedy in their petitions than such as those. Many come 
a begging, who are lusty and strong; many come, who have 
no other reason but an idle vagrant humour; who would 
evacuate the subsidies of the poor, or empty their chests, and 
consume what is laid up for their maintenance: neither are 
they content with a little, but require great largesses; they 
appear as gentlemen in their dress, and make that a means to 
promote their petition; and, pretending to be men of good birth, 
they make use of that as an argument to gain a greater con- 
tribution. If any one is too easy in giving credit to such as 


HL: 4. c. 23° (v. 2. p. 238. 40.) 
ἔλλλος δέ τις ἔλεγεν, ὅτι ὁ μοναχὸς, 
εἰ μὴ ἐργάζοιτο, ἐπίσης τῷ πλεονέκτῃ 
κρίνεται. 

15 De Opere Monachorum. Vid. 
cc. 17, seqq. (t. 6. p. 489 d. et seqq.) 
Quid enim agant, qui operari cor- 
poraliter nolunt, &c. 

16 B. 7. ch. 3. 8. 10. v. 2. p. 367. 

7 De Officiis, 1. 4. c. 16. (t. 2. 
p. 88. Ὁ. n. 76.) Liquet igitur debere 
esse liberalitatis modum, ne fiat in- 
utilis largitas. Sobrietas tenenda 
est, maxime sacerdotibus, ut non 
pro jactantia, sed pro justitia dis- 
pensent. Nusquam enim major a- 
viditas petitionis. Veniunt validi, 


veniunt nullam causam nisi vagandi 
habentes, et volunt subsidia evacu- 
are pauperum, exinanire sumptum : 
nec exiguo contenti, majora que- 
runt, ambitu vestium captantes pe- 
titionis suffragium, et natalium si- 
mulatione _licitantes incrementa 
questuum. His si quis facile de- 
ferat fidem, cito exhaurit pauperum 
alimoniis profutura compendia. Mo- 
dus largiendi adsit, ut nec illi inanes 
recedant, neque transcribatur vita 
pauperum in spolia fraudulentorum. 
Ea ergo mensura sit, ut neque hu- 
manitas deseratur, nec destituatur 
necessitas, 


490 The great crimes, XVI. xii. 


these, he will quickly defeat those useful methods which are 
taken for the maintenance of the poor. Therefore a modera- 
tion is to be observed in giving; that neither such may be sent 
away empty, if really in want; nor the livelihood of the poor 
be turned into another channel, to become a spoil and prey to 
the frauds of the crafty.’ It is plain from such accounts as these, 
that they looked upon an idle life as no better than living upon 
the spoils of the poor, and a robbery of the worst sort; because 
it often joined fraud and cruelty to the theft, making use of 
false pretences to divert the current of men’s charity from the 
widow and the fatherless, and turn it to themselves; who had 
no necessity but what they voluntarily made to themselves, 
either by their idleness or luxurious and prodigal way of 
living: the supporting of which was an arrant theft and rob- 
bing of the poor, which is the height and extremity of cruelty 
and oppression. And therefore, as the laws of the State made 
idleness in vagrants an actionable crime, (ἀργίας δίκη the law 
itself terms it,) so the rules of the Church brand it as an in- 

famous way of living, and worthy of ecclesiastical censure. 
And gam- 40, To this they added gaming, as another way of cheating 
secant off Wane defrauding ; and that in a double respect, because men 
aera thereby were inclined to cozenage and deceit, and often ruined 
many poor their families, who by this means were reduced to the greatest 
ay poverty and want by the dissoluteness and folly of a wicked 
thesemeans parent. There might be many other reasons for declaiming 
laced to 2gainst this vice, as that it is a reproachful way of dissolute 
the greatest living, and spending men’s time in luxury, condemned by many 
emgen® wise and sober Heathens; that the old Roman laws punished 
gamesters with banishment, and many other severe penalties’, 
that gaming inclines men to many great and horrible vices, as 
covetousness, perjury, lying, cursing and swearing, anger and 
passion, quarrelling and murder, and rioting and intemperance 
of all sorts: but I consider it here only as attended with the 
evil effects of fraud and consumption of men’s estates. which 
involves many poor families in ruin, in which notion it is a 
downright theft and robbery. And as such it was anciently 
prohibited by the rules of the Church, not only to the clergy, 
'8 See Bishop 'Taylor’s Ductor pp. 326, &c.) See particularly 5. 28. 


Dubitantium, b. 4.ch. 1. p.776. rule (ibid. p. 328.) citing the Lex Roscia, 
2. 8, 27. and onwards. (Worksyv.14. &c. 


| 
y 


§ 20. 


theft, fraud, Se. 491 


but the laity also. ‘If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon,’ says 
one of the Apostolical Canons 19, ‘ spend his time at dice or in 
drinking, let him either refrain or be deposed.’ And the next 
canon adds, ‘ If any subdeacon, reader, or singer do the like, 
let him be excommunicated, and laymen also. And so the 
Council of Eliberis?! separates all gamesters in general from 
the communion: ‘ If any Christian play at dice or tables, let 
him be restrained from communicating; but if he leaves off and 
amends after a year’s penance, he may be reconciled.’ 
Albaspineus?? thinks the reason of the prohibition was, 
because the dice had the images of the Heathen gods, as Venus, 
&e., imprinted on them instead of numbers, and that men in 
their play called upon them for good fortune: but if so, I con- 
ceive, a greater penalty would have been imposed upon them, 
as upon idolaters, by this Council. Therefore it is more rea- 
sonable to suppose, that the Council considered gaming as a 
misspending of men’s useful time, a consumer of their fortunes 
and destruction of their families, and an inlet to fraud and 
covetousness and all the forementioned vices; and, under that 
notion, condemned such as made a trade and business of it and 
not a diversion. Upon this account St. Ambrose 33 pronounces 
the gain that is got by dice and gaming to be ‘ no better than 
theft, or unmerciful and griping usury, and that the man who 
gives himself to it, leads the life of a savage wild beast.’ And 
Justinian made a law?4, ‘that no one should be obliged to pay 


'9 0. 42. [al.41.] (Cotel. [c. 35.] v. 


felicissimus eveniret jactus. Sue- 
I. p. 443.) Ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, 


tonius in Augusto: Quos tollebat 


ἢ διάκονος, κύβοις σχολάζων καὶ μέθαις, 
ἢ παυσάσθω, ἢ καθαιρείσθω. 

20 C. 42. [al. 42.} (ibid.) Ὑποδιά- 
κονος, ἢ Ψάλτης, ἢ ἀναγνώστης, τὰ 
ὅμοια ποιῶν, ἢ παυσάσθω, ἢ ἀφορι- 
ζέσθω" ὡσαύτως καὶ οἱ λαϊκοί. 

21 C. 79. (t. 1. Ρ. 970 a.) Si quis 
fidelis alea, id est, tabula luserit 
[nummos], placuit eum abstinere : 
et, si emendatus cessaverit, post an- 
num poterit reconciliari. 

22 In loc. (ibid. p. 1007 a.) De 
talis, ni fallor, canon accipiendus, 
quibus ludere nefas videbatur, quod 
speciem quandam idololatrie com- 
mitteret, qui eos jactaret: deorum 
enim gentilium efhgies pro numeris 
habebant ; iique invocabantur, ut 


universos, qui Venerem jecerat. [ Conf. 
Horat. Od. 2. 7. 25. Ep.] 

23 De Tobia, c. 11. tot. (t. 1. 
pp- 602 e, seqq.) Aliud non minoris 
acerbitatis, &c. 

24 Cod. 1. 3. tit. 43. de Aleatori- 
bus, leg. 1. (t. 4. p. 757.) Ὅτι 6 ἡτ- 
τηθεὶς εἰς κόττον, [? κότταβον,) οὐκ 
ἀπαιτεῖται καὶ καταβαλὼν, ἀναλαμ- 
βάνει μετὰ διαδόχων ἀπὸ νικήσαντος 
καὶ τῶν κληρονόμων αὐτοῦ διηνεκῶς, 
καὶ περὶ τριακονταετίας. Ei δὲ μὴ θέ- 
λουσιν ἀναλαβεῖν" ὁ θέλων, καὶ μά- 
λιστα ὁ τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ἧ τοῦτο γέ- 
γονε, πατὴρ, ἢ ἔκδικος ἀπαιτεῖ, καὶ 
δαπανᾷ εἰς ἔργα τῆς πόλεως. [ Cf. Ed. 
Amstel. 1663. p. 106. Ep. } 


492 The great crimes, 


what he lost at dice; or if he had paid it, he or his heirs might 
recover it at law of the winner or his heirs for thirty years 
after and longer. Or, if he did not reclaim it, any one else 
might do it, or the chief magistrate of the city, the defensor, 
might exact it, and lay it out upon some public work or build- 
ing for the use of the city.’ And in such games as were per- 
mitted 25, he allowed the richest to play for no more than one 
shilling, and others only in proportion to their substance. And 
this was a very wise law, considering the complaint, which 
St. Jerom 26 makes, ‘ that whilst men play for vast sums, and 
stake their whole estates at once, the poor stand naked and 
hungry before their doors, and Christ perishes and is starved 
to death in his poor members for want of their relief’ Nay 
many times their own flesh and blood, their families and rela- 
tions were ruined by their folly in one night. And what cha- 
racter or punishment could be thought too bad for such? 
“He that provides not for his own, and especially those of his 
own house, has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 
And for this reason both the civil and ecclesiastical laws were 
so severe against dice and gaming, because of such evil con- 
sequences so commonly attending them, when they are under- 
taken for undue ends, and pursued by false measures, only to 
serve men’s fraud and filthy lucre. Otherwise to play yepov- 
τικῶς, as old men used to play, for diversion and not for 
lucre®7, is what wise and good men have always innocently 
done without any reproach or censure. 

25 Vid. ibid. leg. 2. (p. 758.) Kat Vivimus quasi altera die morituri, 
μὲν σφόδρα πλούσιοι νομίσματος ἑνὸς et edificamus, quasi semper in hoc 


c Ul , ’ c ‘ . - Ω 
ἑκάστην σύνθεσιν παίζουσι" οἱ δὲ λοι- seeculo victuri. Auro parietes, auro 
ποὶ πάνυ ἥττονος. laquearia, auro fulgent capita colum- 


26 Ep. 12. [al. 128.] ad Gau- 
dent. Posita dum lauditur arca, stat 
pauper nudus atque esuriens ante 
fores, Christusque in paupere mori- 
tur. [This citation is inaccurate, in- 
asmuch as the first clause of it is 
the last part of the goth line of the 
first Satire of Juvenal, where he re- 
proves the gamesters and spend- 
thrifts of his day; and the remain- 
der of the passage is not exactly in 
the words of Jerome according to 
any edition. See Ed. Bened. Paris. 
1706. (t. 4. part 2. col. 799.) or Ed. 
Vallars. Verone, 1734—42. (t. I. 
p- 959 c.) where we read as follows : 


narum; et nudus atque esuriens 
ante fores nostras Christus in pau- 
pere moritur.—I have examined also 
the old edition of Erasmus per Fro- 
benium, but neither does that, or 
any other that I have seen, justify 
the Author’s citation, who may 
possibly have quoted here, as in some 
other instances, from memory, or 
from notes accidentally incorrect. 
Ep. 

Ἢ See Bishop Taylor’s Ductor 
Dubitantium, b. 4. ch. 1. p. 776. rule 
2. s. 31. (Works, v. 14. p. 331.) But 
if the case can be otherwise, &c. 


XVL xi 


§ 20. xi. 1. false witness, Sc. 493 


And so I have done with the several sorts of theft and rob- 
bery, which are great transgressions of the Eighth Command- 
ment; by which we may judge of the mistake of those who 
confine the discipline of the Church to the punishment of three 
capital crimes, idolatry, adultery, and murder: for it will be 
hard to bring theft under any of those denominations, unless 
we say all theft is covetousness, and covetousness is idolatry. 
But in that large sense of idolatry, which is serving our own 
affections more than God, not only covetousness, but adultery 
and murder will be idolatry also. And then all crimes might 
be resolved into one, and the Church had nothing to do but to 
punish one crime under different species of idolatry: which 
does by no means rightly explain her discipline, which makes 
idolatry a distinct crime against a command in the first table 
of the Decalogue, as disobedience to parents, adultery, murder, 
and theft, are against the second table; and according to this 
order I have hitherto considered them in this discourse. 


CHAP. XIII. 


Of great crimes against the Ninth Commandment, false ac- 
cusation, libelling, informing, calumny and slander, rail- 
ing and reviling, Sc. 

1. Tue intent of the Ninth Commandment is to secure our of false 
neighbour’s credit from injury by spreading false reports con- Witness: 
cerning him, to the prejudice of his good name and reputation. 
This is sometimes done in a public manner, by bearing false 
witness against him: and then it is adding perjury to the ca- 
lumny, and sometimes theft and murder also: for it may affect 
not only his credit, but his fortune and his life too; as it did 
in the case of Naboth, who was stoned to death upon a false 
accusation, “ Naboth did blaspheme God and the king.” 
[τ Kings, 21, 13.} | And so our Saviour and many of his dis- 
ciples after him, suffered by the malicious and false imputa- 
tions of their enemies, the Jews and Heathens. The greatness 
of the crime in these respects has been already shown under 
the several titles of perjury, theft, and murder: here I only 
consider it as an injury to men’s reputation, which being a 
thing dear and valuable to all men, the laws were very careful 
to secure men in the quiet enjoyment of it, and punish all base 
attempts to ruin and destroy it. 


494 The great crimes. XVI. χα 
Aulus Gellius? tells us, the punishment of false-witness 
among the Romans, by the law of the Twelve Tables, was to 
cast the criminal headlong from the top of the Tarpeian Rock: 
and he thinks, if this punishment had continued, it might have 
been of great service to the Roman commonwealth in deterring 
men from the commission of this crime by its just severity. 
Afterward by a law, called the Lex Remmia*9, false witnesses 
were burnt in the face, and stigmatized with the letter K, de- 
noting them to be calumniators or false accusers. In opposition 
to whom the law ° calls honest men, homines integre frontis, 
men without any such mark set upon them. This law and 
punishment is often mentioned by the Roman writers, Tully?', 
Pliny", and others3?: and though the Christian law abolished 
it, as it did that of the cross and some others, yet still false 


28 Noct. Attic. 1. 20. 6.1. (p.873.) 
An putas, Favorine, si non illa etiam 
ex Duodecim Tabulis de testimoniis 
falsis poena abolevisset: et si nunc 
quoque, ut antea, qui falsum testi- 
monium dixisse convictus esset, e 
Saxo Tarpeio dejiceretur, mentitu- 
ros fuisse pro testimonio tam mul- 
tos, quam videmus? 

29 Digest. 1. 48. tit. τό. ad Sena-~ 
tus-consultum Turpilianum, leg. 1. 
n. 2. (t. 3. p. 1507.) Calumniatoribus 
peena lege Remmia irrogatur. 

30 Tbid. 1. 22. tit. 5. de Testibus, 
leg. 13. (t. 1. p. 2079.).. . Testimonii 
fidem, quod integre frontis homo 
dixerit, perpendere. 

31 Orat. 2. pro Roscio, n. 55. 
[al. 19.] (v. 3. p. 914.) Nemo nos- 
trum est, Eruci, quin sciat, tibi ini- 
micitias cum Sexto Roscio nullas 
esse: vident omnes, qua de causa 
huic inimicus venias: sciunt hu- 
jusce pecunia te adductum esse. 
Quid ergo est? ita tamen questus 
te cupidum esse oportebat, ut ho- 
rum existimationem et legem Rem- 
miam putares aliquid valere opor- 
tere.—Num. 57. [8]. 20.] (ibid. p. 
916.) Sin autem sic agetis, ut ar- 
guatis aliquem patrem occidisse, ne- 
que dicere possitis, aut quare, aut 
quomodo, ac tantummodo sine sus- 
picione latrabitis; crura quidem vo- 
bis nemo suffringet: sed si ego hos 
bene novi, literam illam, cui vos us- 
que eo inimici estis, ut etiam eas 


omnes oderitis, ita vehementer ad 
caput affigent, ut postea neminem 
alium, nisi fortunas vestras, accu- 
sare possitis. 

32 Panegyric. p. 106. [c. 35. | 
(Lond. 1741. p. 312.)... Neque, ut 
antea, exsanguem illam et ferream 
frontem nequidquam convulneran- 
dam prebeant punctis, et notas suas 
rideant ; sed spectent paria przemio 
damna, nec majores spes, quam me- 
tus habeant ; timeantque, quantum 
timebantur. 

33 Vid. Dempster. Addition. 5. 
Paralipom. ad Rosin. 1. 9. c. 16. p. 
1517. [Vid. 1.8. c. 22. de Judiciis. 
(p. 1381 ἃ. 2.) Lex de Calumniato- 
ribus. Item illa de calumniatoribus: 
ut calumniatoribus peena constituto 
judicio imperetur : cujus meminit 
Cicero pro Sexto Roscio, Papinianus, 
1.13. de Testibus, 1.1. ο. 1. ad Se- 
natus-consultum Turpilianum. Hae 
autem lege calumniatori in fronte 
imprimebatur litera, qua indicaba- 
tur calumniatum eum esse. Sic 
enim Cicero pro Sexto Roscio: Li- 
teram illam, §c. Ceterum hane 
legem, sicut et superiorem [Mem- 
miam] quidam Remmiam, appellant. 
Paulus Manutius autem, Commen- 
tariis in Orationem pro Sexto Roscio, 
superiorem illam de reo evocando 
Memmiam, hane ergo de calumnia- 
toribus Remmiam dictam sibi videri 
seribit. Grischov. } 


False witness, Sc. 495 


accusation and calumny were corrected with suitable punish- 
ments, such as infamy, banishment, and suffering the same 
evil, by the law of retaliation, which the false accuser intended 
to draw upon others ; as appears from several laws in the Im- 
perial Codes*4, and particularly those which bind the accusing 
party to undergo the same punishment which his false accusa- 
tion tended to bring upon the supposed criminal, if he did not 
make good his charge against him. We have already 35 seen 
a law of Valentinian and Gratian, ordering ‘ that whoever im- 
pleaded another, either in regard to his fame and reputation, 
or his fortune, or his life, should undergo the same penalty he 
intended to bring upon the party so impeached, if he proved a 
calumniator, and did not fairly make out his action: and every 
accuser was tied in bonds, which the law*6 calls vineulwm in- 


34 Cod. Theod. 1. 9. tit. 39. de 
Calumniatoribus, leg. 1. (t. 9. p. 
284.) Non est ratio, qua manifesti 
calumniatoris supplicium differatur : 
nec enim patimur frequenter iterarl, 
que consistere prima actione non 
quiverint, atque alienam innocen- 
tiam securitatemque sine crimine, 
damnabili appetitione terreri.—Leg. 
2. (p. 285.) Nostris et parentum 
nostrorum constitutionibus compre- 
hensum est, eos qui accusationem 
alienis nominibus presumpsissent, 
delatorum numero esse ducendos. 
Atque ideo calumniosissimum caput 
et personam judicio irrite delationis 
infamem deportatio sequatur: quo 
posthac singuli universique cognos- 
cant, non licere in eo principum 
animos commovere, ὌΝ non pos- 
sit ostendi.— Leg. 3. (p. 287.) In- 
nocentes, sub specie false crimina- 
tionis, non patimur callidorum im- 
pugnatione subverti: que si temp- 
taverint, intelligant sibimet severita- 
tem legum pro commissis facinori- 
bus incumbere.—Cod. Justin. 1. 9. 
tit. 46. de Calumniatoribus, leg. 7. 
(t. 4. p- 2444.) Non prius quen- 
quam sinceritas tua ad tue sedis 
examen jubebit adduci, quam so- 
lemnibus satisfecerit, qui nititur fi- 
dem doloris asserere : cum, juxta 
formam juris antiqui, ei, qui coeperit 
arguere, aut vindicta proposita sit, 
si vera detulerit, aut supplicium, si 


fefellerit.— Leg. 8. (p. ead. ad calc.) 
Nostris et parentum, &c.—Leg. 9. 
(p- 2445.) Fallaciter incusantibus, 
maxime post exhibitionem accusati, 
nullius juris color veluti derivata 
excusatione proficiat: non publica 
quidem abolitio, non privata talibus 
proficiat subveniatque personis: non 
specialis indulgentia, nec beneficium 
quidem eos generale subducat.— 
Leg. το. (p. 2446.) Quisquis crimen 
intendit, non impunitam fore nove- 
rit licentiam mentiendi; cum ca- 
lumniantes ad vindictam poscat si- 
militudo supplicii. 

35 Ch. 12. 8.15. p. 473- 

86 Cod. Theod. lib. g. tit. 1. de 
Accusationibus et Inscriptionibus, 
leg. Ὁ. (t. 3. p. 13.) Non prius 
quenquam, &c.—Vid. Cod. Justin. 
]. 9. tit. 46. leg. 7. See the pre- 
ceding note.— Cod. Theod. ibid. 
leg. 11. (p. 15.) Nullus secundum 
juris fantiquit proscriptum crimen, 
quod intendere proposuerit, exse- 
quatur, nisi subeat inscriptionis 
vinculum, &c.—Leg. 14. (p. 19.) 
Qui vel internecii exserit actionem, 
vel crimen suspect mortis intendit, 
non prius cujuscunque caput accu- 
satione pulset, quam vinculo legis 
astrictus pari coeperit poene condic- 
tione jurgare: ita ut etiam servos 
si quis crediderit accusandos, non 
prius ad miserorum tormenta veni- 
atur, quam se accusator vinculo in- 


496 XVI. xii. 


The great crimes, 


scriptionis, to suffer a retaliation, or similitude of punishment, 
upon failure of evincing his charge against another. Such care 
was taken by the secular laws to discourage delators or false 
informers, and preserve the fame and reputation of innocent 
men against the vile attempts of such dangerous aggressors. 
Nor were the ecclesiastical laws less severe in their way 
against such transgressors. The false witness in any case was 
to do penance five years for his crime by a canon®7 of the 
Council of Eliberis. And this, provided it was not in the case 
of death; for in that case, being the crime of murder, the 
criminal was to be debarred from communion to the very last, 
as has been shown before#* in speaking of murder. The Coun- 
cils of Agde®9 and Vannes?° impose a general penance upon 
such offenders, without naming the term or duration of their 
penance, which was left to the discretion of the bishop, who 
was to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. But the first 
Council of Arles‘! obliges them to do penance all their lives: 
and the second4? only moderates their punishment so far as to 
leave it to the bishop to determine of their repentance and 


Of libell- 
ing. 


satisfaction. 


2. Another way of injuring men’s credit and reputation was, 
by spreading false reports in a covert and clandestine manner, 
which the law calls libelling. This was done when a man was 


scriptionis astrinxerit, &c.—Leg. 19. 
(Ρ. 24.) Accusationis ordinem jam 
dudum legibus institutum  servari 
jubemus: ut quicunque in discri- 
men capitis arcessitur, non statim 
reus, qui accusari potuit, zestimetur, 
ne subjectam innocentiam faciamus: 
sed quisquis ille est, qui crimen in- 
tendit, in judicium veniat; nomen 
rei indicet ; vinculum inscriptionis 
accipiat ; custodie similitudinem, 
habita tamen dignitatis zestimatione, 
patiatur : nec impunitam fore no- 
verit licentiam mentiendi; cum ca- 
lumniantes ad vindictam poscat si- 
militudo supplicii. 

37 C. 74. (t.1. p. 978 c.) Falsus 
testis prout crimen est abstinebit ; 
si tamen non fuerit mortis quod ob- 
jecit. Et si probaverit quod diu 
[al. non] tacuerit, biennii tempore 
abstinebit. Si autem non probaverit 
in conventu clericorum, placuit per 
quinquennium abstinere. 


38 Ch. ro. ss. 9 and Io. p. 397. 

39 C. 37. (t.4. Ρ. 1389 c.) Cense- 
mus [8]. censuimus] homicidas et 
falsos testes a communione ecclesi- 
astica submovendos, nisi peenitentiz 
satisfactione crimina admissa dilu- 
erint. 

40 C.1. (ibid. p. 1055 b.) in the 
same words.—C. Carth. 4. ὁ. 55. 
(t. 2. p. 1204 c.) Ut episcopus ac- 
cusatores fratrum excommunicet, et, 
si emendaverint vitium, recipiat eos 
ad communionem, non ad clerum. 

41 C.14.(t. 1. p. 1428 6.) De his, 
qui falso accusant fratres suos, pla- 
cuit, eos usque ad exitum non com- 
municare, &c. 

42 C, 24. (Ὁ. 4. p. 1013 6.) Eos, qui 
falsa [al. falso] fratribus capitula 
[al. capitalia] objecisse convicti fue- 
rint, placuit, usque ad exitum non 
communicare, sicut magna synodus 
ante constituit, nisi digna satisfac- 
tione peenituerint. 


§ 2; 3. Jalse witness, &e. 497 


accused by a bill of indictment, to which the author was afraid 
to set his name. And such accusations were of no force in law, 
but were appointed to be torn in pieces or burnt ; and no man 
might read, or retain, or divulge them, without being reputed 
the infamous author of them. The Christian emperors were 
extremely careful in discouraging all such base attempts upon 
men’s credit and reputation, as may be seen in the several laws 
of Constantine, Constantius, Valentinian and Valens, Theodosius 
and Arcadius, in the Theodosian Code, under the title, De Fa- 
mosis Libellis. It will be sufficient to repeat one of them‘? 
made by Valentinian in this tenour: ‘ The very name of scan- 
dalous libels is infamous. Therefore whoever collects, or reads 
them, and does not immediately commit them to the flames, 
shall be liable to be condemned to a capital punishment.’ By 
which it is easy to judge how infamous the authors of such 
libels were, since none were allowed so much as to read and 
retain them with impunity, but were in danger of being pro- 
ceeded against as the suspected authors of them. The ecclesi- 
astical law made the authors and publishers of all such pasquils, 
when detected, liable to excommunication. For so the Council 
of Eliberis words it in one*+ of her canons: ‘If any are found 
to have scattered or dispersed infamous libels in the church, 
let them be anathematized.’ 

3. Another sort of secret defamation was that which was Of detrac- 
committed by the detraction of the lurking whisperer and aoe 
backbiter : against whose venomous tongues St. Austin is said backbiting. 
to haye endeavoured to guard his own family and conversation. 
by causing these two verses to be written upon his table :— 


Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere vitam, 
Hane mensam indignam noverit esse sibi. 


He, that takes delight in lessening the characters of the ab- 
sent, is no welcome or worthy quest at this table. This he 
did to admonish every one that came there to abstain from 
defamatory discourse and detraction. And Possidius*? says, 


4 LL. g. tit. 34. leg. 7. (t. 3. p. 44 C. 52. (t. 1. p. 976 b.) Si qui 


inventi 


243.) Famosorum infame est nomen 
libellorum. Ac si quis vel colligen- 
dos, vel legendos putaverit, ac non 
statim chartas igni consumpserit, 
sciat se capitali sententia subjugan- 
dum. 


BINGHAM, VOL. VI. 


fuerint libellos famosos in 
ecclesia ponere, anathematizentur. 
53 Vit. Augustin. c. 22. (ap. O- 
per. juxt. Ed. Bened. t. 10. ap- 
pend. p. 272 f.)—Conf. ibid. (p. 273 
a.) Nam et quosdam suos familia- 


Kk 


Of railing 
and re- 
viling, or 
scurrilous 
and abusive 
language : 
and of re- 
vealing 
secrets. 


498 The great crimes, 


he was so strict and punctual in the observation of this rule, 
that he would sometimes sharply reprove his most familiar 
acquaintance and fellow-bishops for forgetting and transgressing 
it; telling them, that either those verses must be erased from 
his table, or he must withdraw and retire to his private apart- 
ment. This was a sort of private discipline, like that of St. 
Austin’s mother denying him the privilege of sitting at her 
own table whilst he was a Manichee; and it was a very proper 
way of discouraging all evil speaking and detraction ; but I do 
not find that this crime was brought under public discipline 
by any general rule of the Church. And the reason might be 
what St. Jerom>+ observes, that the sin was too general and 
epidemical to be publicly corrected. ‘ For there are very few 
that have wholly renounced this vice; and it is a rare thing 
to find any so careful to make their own life unblameable, not 
to be willing to find fault with others. Yea, so great a pro- 
pensity is there in men’s minds towards this evil, that they, 
who are far removed from other vices, fall into this as the last 
snare of the Devil.’ 

4. But when this detraction broke out into open slander 
and calumny, and especially when it was attended with contu- 
melious, bitter, and reproachful words, with railing and re- 
viling, and scurrilous and abusive language; then, as it was 
matter of public scandal, so it became the subject of a public 
censure, for St. Paul puts railers and revilers into the numbers 
of those who are neither fit for the society of men, nor the 
kingdom of God. Thus, (1 Cor. 5, 11,) “ I have written unto 
you, not to keep company, if any man, that is called a brother, 
be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a 
drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat.” 
And again, (1 Cor. 6, 9 and 10,) “ Be not deceived: neither 
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor 
abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, 


XVI. xl 


rissimos coepiscopos illius Scripture 
oblitos, et contra eam loquentes, tam 
aspere aliquando reprehendit, com- 
motus ut diceret, aut delendos esse 
illos de mensa versus, aut se de me- 
dia refectione ad suum cubiculum 
surrecturum., 

54 Ep. 14. [al. 148.] ad Celantium. 
(t. 1. p. 1096 6.) Pauci admodum 


sunt, qui huic vitio renuntient ; ra- 
roque invenies qui ita vitam suam 
irreprehensibilem exhibere velint, ut 
non libenter reprehendant alienam. 
‘Tantaque hujus mali libido mentes 
hominum invasit, ut, etiam qui pro- 
cul ab aliis vitiis recesserunt, in is- 
tud tanquam [8]. tamen quasi] in 
extremum Diaboli laqueum incidant. 






' 


false witness, Se. 499 


| δ: 


nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the 
kingdom of God.” And therefore the Church, following this 
rule, reckoned slanderous railing and scurrility among the 
crimes that deserved ecclesiastical censure. Insomuch that a 
clergyman, who was noted for scurrilous and scoffing language, 
is ordered by the Council of Agde 55 to be degraded. And 
the same canon occurs in the fourth Council of Carthage 56, 
with some others of the like nature: as, if he be given to 
railing 57, or to revealing of secrets to the infamy and disgrace 
of others. 
Upon this latter case, of defaming men by divulging un- 
necessarily their secret crimes, St. Austin has a whole Dis- 
course 58, where he particularly says, ‘that he that rebukes 
a man publicly before all, when his crime is known to none 
but himself alone, is not a reprover, but a betrayer.’ He 
reminds such of ‘the example of Joseph 59, who, finding the 
holy Virgin to be with child, and suspecting her to be guilty 
of fornication, yet, being a just and good man, was minded to 
put her away privily, and not make her a public example;’ 
and he adds ®, that bishops were wont thus to proceed with 
private criminals in the Church: ‘ A bishop knows a man to 
be guilty of murder, and the thing is known to none besides 
himself. If in this case I should reprove him publicly, some 
other would take the law upon him. Therefore I neither be- 


55 ©. 70. (t. 4. p. 1394 ¢.) Cleri- 
cum scurrilem et verbis turpibus 
joculatorem ab officio retrahendum. 

56 C. 6o. (t. 2. p. 1204 6.) In the 
same words. 

57 Ibid. c. 57 (d.) Clericus male- 
dicus, maxime in sacerdotibus, co- 
gatur ad postulandam veniam. Si 
noluerit, degradetur.— C. 56. (d.) 
Clericus, qui adulationibus et pro- 
ditionibus vacare deprehenditur, ab 
officio degradetur. 

58 Serm. 16. de Verb. Dom. t. το. 
ΒΓ 29. [al. Serm. 82. c. 7.] (t. 5. 
p- 444 b.)..... Si solus nosti quia 
peccavit in te, et eum vis coram 
omnibus arguere, non es correptor, 
sed proditor. 

59 [bid. (c.) Attende, quemadmo- 
dum vir justus Joseph tanto flagitio, 
quod de uxore fuerat suspicatus, 


tanta benignitate pepercit, antequam 
sciret unde illa conceperat: quia 
gravidam senserat, et se ad illam 
non accessisse noverat. Restabat 
itaque certa adulterii suspicio: et 
tamen, quia ipse solus senserat, ipse 
solus sciebat, quid de illo ait Evan- 
gelium? Joseph autem cum esset vir 
justus, et nollet eam divulgare. Ma- 
riti dolor non vindictam quesivit. 
Voluit prodesse peccanti, non punire 
peccantem. 

60 Ibid. c. 8. (p. 444 f.) Novit 
enim nescio quem homicidam epi- 
scopus, et alius illum nemo novit. 
Ego illum volo publice corripere, at 
tu queris inscribere. Prorsus nec 
aah nec negligo: corripio in se- 
creto; pono ante oculos Dei judi- 
cium, terreo cruentam conscientiam, 
persuadeo poenitentiam. 


zk 


500 The great crimes, XVI. xiii. 


tray nor neglect him: I reprove him in secret, I set before 
his eyes the judgment of God, I terrify his guilty conscience, 
I persuade him to repentance!’ ‘So again,’ says he, “ there 
are some men that are adulterers in their own houses, they sin 
sometimes in private, and they are discovered to us by their 
own wives, sometimes in zeal and fury, sometimes in mercy, 
desiring the salvation of their souls. Now in this case we do 
not betray them openly, but rebuke them in secret. Where the 
evil was committed, there let it die. Yet we do not neglect that 
wound, but before all things show the man that has committed 
such a sin, and wounded his conscience thereby, that his wound 
is mortal.’ By this discourse of St. Austin it seems clear, that 
the Church brought no private crimes under public penance, 
except when the guilty person consented to it and required it: 
and to do otherwise was an high crime in the minister, who 
was charged, for any such attempt, as a divulger of secrets, 
and betrayer of his trust, and one that brought an unnecessary 
defamation and scandal upon his brethren. 


ane: 5. Thus far the discipline of the Church proceeded against 
it brought all defamatory and pernicious lying. But there are some other 
roa sorts of lies, as the ludicrous lie and the officious lie, which, 
pline of _ though culpable and sinful in themselves, were not so severely 
the Church, 


pursued by ecclesiastical censures. Tertullian © reckoning up 
those lesser sins which were not publicly punished by penance 
in the Church, puts ‘lying out of modesty or necessity’ among 
them; and Origen® makes lying one of those sins which 
were incident to those who had made the greatest proficiency 
in the Church. 

Some indeed pleaded for officious hes, as not only innocent 
and lawful, but in some cases useful and necessary; as if it 


61 [Tbid. (g.) Sunt homines adul- 
teri in domibus suis, in secreto pec- 
cant, aliquando nobis produntur ab 
uxoribus suis plerumque zelantibus, 
aliquando maritorum salutem que- 
rentibus: nos non prodimus palam, 
sed in secreto arguimus. Ubi con- 
tigit malum, ibi moriatur malum. 
Non tamen vulnus illud negligimus; 
ante omnia ostendentes homini in 
tali peccato constituto, sauciamque 
gerenti conscientiam, illud vulnus 


esse mortiferum ; ἕο. Ἐν. 

62 De Pudicit. c. 19. (p. 582 b.) 
..+ Quod sint quedam delicta quo- 
tidianz incursionis, quibus omnes 
simus objecti. Cui enim non acci- 
dit, aut irasci inique, et ultra solis 
occasum ; aut et manum immittere, 
aut facile maledicere, aut temere ju- 
rare, aut fidem pacti destruere; aut 
verecundia, aut necessitate mentiri. 

63 'Tractat. 6. in Matth. p. 60. See 
before, ch. 3. s. 14. p. 185. Ἐς 58. 


§ 5: 


false witness, Sc. 501 


were to save the life of an innocent person, a man ought in 
that case rather to tell a lie, than to betray him to death. 
But St. Austin disputes against this sort of officious lies also, 
and shows them to be culpable and sinful; arguing, that a man 
ought neither to betray an innocent person, nor tell a he to 
save him, but to venture his own life, by professing roundly, 
that he will neither lie for him, nor discover him. And he 
gives a rare instance of this sort of fortitude ® in one Firmus, 
bishop of Tagasta, who according to what the Greeks call 
φερωνυμία. pheronomy, carried firmness in his name, and jfirm- 
ness in his resolution. For, when one of the Heathen emperors 
had sent his apparitors to search for a certain person whom he 
had hidden, he told them plainly, he could neither tell a 116 
nor betray the man; and though they put him to the rack, 
and tortured him to make him confess, yet he persisted in his 
resolution not to discover the man that was fled to him for 
safety and protection. Whereupon he was carried before the 
emperor himself, where he gave such admirable and fresh 
proofs of his firmness, that the emperor without any great 
difficulty was prevailed upon to pardon the man, whom he kept 
in private under his protection. This was a singular instance 
of heroic gallantry, rather to run the hazard of his own life, 
than tell a lie to save another from destruction. But the disci- 
pline of the Church did not run thus high, to oblige all men to 
come up to this degree of veracity under pain of excommuni- 
cation. It was sufficient to encourage truth and ingenuity in 
all cases, and punish falseness and perfidiousness in all noto- 
rious instances of mischievous evil: but in other cases it was 
no blemish to the discipline of the Church to suffer some sort 
of more pardonable lying to pass without the animadversion of 
the highest censure, so long as they gave no encouragement to 
it, but condemned it universally as a lesser instance of trans- 


64 De Mendacio ad Consentium, 
c. 13. (t. 6. p. 434 a.) Fecit hoc 
episcopus quondam Thagastensis ec- 
clesie, Firmus nomine, firmior vo- 
luntate. Nam cum ab eo querere- 
tur homo jussu imperatoris per ap- 
paritores ab eo missos, quem ad se 
fugientem diligentia, quanta pote- 
rat, occultabat ; respondit queren- 


tibus nec mentini se posse, nec 
hominem prodere; passusque tam 
multa tormenta corporis (nondum 
enim erant imperatores Christiani) 
permansit in sententia. Deinde ad 
imperatorem ductus usque adeo mi- 
rabilis apparuit, ut ipsi homini, quem 
servabat, indulgentiam sine ulla diffi- 
cultate impetraret. 


502 The great crimes, 


gression. ΤῸ this purpose St. Austin says in another place ®, 
‘there are two sorts of lies in which there is no great fault, 
and yet they are not wholly without fault, that is, when we lie 
in jest, and when we lie for the advantage of our neighbour.’ 
In this latter case he thinks a man may honestly conceal the 
truth by silence, but he must not upon any account speak false, 
or tell a lie; for that will not consist with the perfection of a 
Christian. Therefore if he would not betray a man to death, 
‘he must prepare himself to conceal the truth, but not to speak 
false ; so as that he may neither betray the man, nor tell a lie; 
lest he destroy his own soul to preserve the life of another.’ 
As this shows the perfection of the Christian morals, so it 
equally declares the abatement that was made in the discipline 
of the Church, in reference to such officious lies as were ex- 
torted from men upon some extraordinary charity ; which 
though it did not wholly excuse the sin, yet it made it so far 
tolerable, as not to incur the severity of publie discipline, but 
come within the number of those lesser sins, which did not 
ordinarily fall under the greater censures of the Church. 

In all other cases, where lying was attended with mischievous 
and pernicious effects, it was punished according to the propor- 
tion of those crimes that accompanied it. As we have already 
seen in the case of false-witness, libelling, slandering, railing, 
and reviling. And when it implied any fraud, or equivocation, 
or double-dealing in matters of religion, it was punished as 
apostasy or perjury, as we have seen in the case of the Libel- 
latici®7, who either denied their religion in writing, or pur- 
chased libels of security from the magistrate, to excuse them 
from sacrificing; and those who feigned themselves mad to 
avoid a prosecution: both which sorts of men the Church con- 


XVI. xiii. 


Oo in Pseo. Ὁ: 2. (i. 4. Beat es) 
Duo sunt omnino genera mendacio- 
rum, in quibus non est magna culpa; 
sed tamen non sunt sine culpa; cum 
aut jocamur, aut, ut [proximis] pro- 
simus, mentimur. 

66 Πη14. (supr. f.).... Aliud est 
mentiri; aliud, verum occultare:... 
ut si quis forte vel ad istam visibi- 
lem mortem non vult hominem pro- 
dere, paratus esse debet verum oc- 
cultare, non falsum dicere; ut neque 
prodat, neque mentiatur; ne occidat 


animam suam pro corpore alterius. 
—Vid. C. Tolet. 8. c. 2. (t. 6. p. 
403 d.) Vir quoque sanctissimus 
Augustinus, &c.—Gratian. caus. 22. 
quest. 2. c. 8. Quot sunt genera 
Mendacii. (t. τ. p. 1254. 43.) Pri- 
mum est capitale mendacium longe- 
que fugiendum quod fit in doctrina 
religionis, .... ut aliquem ledat in- 
juste. 

67 Ch. 4. ss. 6 and 7 of this Book, 
pp. 204, 207. 





> 


false witness, Se. 503 


demned as idolaters, and as guilty, by their dissimulation and 
cowardice, of betraying their holy religion. The Priscillianists 
were likewise infamous for this character and abominable prac- 
tice of equivocation. For they taught their disciples this base 
art of dissembling, and concealing their vile practices by lies 
and perjury 65, giving them this direction as one of their rules 
and instructions in cases of danger: ‘ Swear, and forswear, and 
never discover your secrets.. How much more laudable and 
commendable is the rule given in this case even by the Heathen 
satirist ®, which deserves to be written in letters of gold: ‘If 
ever you are called to be a witness in a doubtful matter, though 
Phalaris himself should command you to speak false, and 
threaten to burn you in his brazen bull unless you will for- 
swear yourself; in that case reckon it the greatest villainy to 
prefer life before truth and honesty, and for the sake of living 
to forego those things, which are the only true reasons of liv- 
ing, that is, probity, integrity, and a good conscience, for which 
end men are born and sent into the world by the providence 
of God.’ 

This rule is often inculcated by the Heathen moralists, Mar- 
cus Antoninus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Plutarch: which made 
it the more reasonable for the Christians to insist upon it, and 
punish the crimes of perjury and falseness with the severest of 
ecclesiastical censures, whenever they could plainly convict any 
one of being guilty of them: and when they could not, the 
providence of God commonly interposed, and discovered and 
punished them by some remarkable divine judgment. Of 
which, beside the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Scripture, 
we have a memorable instance in Eusebius7® of three men, who 
combined together in a false accusation of Narcissus, bishop of 


Jerusalem, imprecating upon 


themselves very direful judg- 


ments, which the providence of God justly brought upon them: 


68 De Heres. c. 70. (t. 8. p. 22 d.) 
Propter occultandas autem conta- 
minationes et turpitudines suas, ha- 
bent in suis dogmatibus et hee ver- 
ba: Jura, perjura, secretum prodere 
noli. 

69 Juvenal. Sat. 8. ver. 80. (ap. 
Corp. Poet. Lat. t. 2. p. 1155.) 

ἜΣ Ambigue si quando citabere 

testis, 


Incertzeque rei, Phalaris licet impe- 
rat, ut sis 

Falsus, et admoto dictet perjuria 
tauro ; 

Summum crede nefas animam pre- 
ferre pudori, 

Et propter vitam vivendi perdere 
causas. 
70 L. 6. c. 9. 

s. 8. Ὁ. 365. n. 28. 


See before, ch. 7. 


504 The great crimes, XVI. xiv. 


of which, because I have given a full relation before?!, I need 
say no more in this place. 


CHAP. ΧΙ: 


Of great transgressions against the Tenth Commandment, 
envy, covetousness, &c. 


Whether 1. ΤΉΒΒΕ is but little to be observed in the ancient discipline 
e e . . . 

bronchi of the Church concerning the transgressions against this com- 
men under mandment: because, though some of them were great crimes, 


the disci- 
pline of the yet they were such as chiefly consisted in the internal cor- 


Church. uptions of the mind; and the Church could take no notice of 
them, till they first discovered themselves in some outward ac- 
tions. Envy was a crime of that nature: it was always reck- 
oned a diabolical sin, and one of the first magnitude: but yet 
before it could bring a man under public discipline, the inward 
rancour of the heart must betray itself in some outward, appa- 
rent, and visible action. In this sense we are to understand 
St. Chrysostom7?, when he says, ‘the envious man ought to be 
cast out of the Church as well as the fornicator, to preserve 
others from the contagion and poison of his example :’ that is, 
when envy shows itself in any of those mischievous effects, 
which naturally arise from it, and turn to the apparent detri- 
ment of men or religion. For, as Cyprian73 observes, ‘ Envy is 
a very prolific vice, multiplying itself into various shapes and 
figures: it is the root of all evils, the fountain of destruction, 


71 Ch. 7. 5. 8. p. 364. nostros, atque in ditionem suam 
72 Hom. 41. in Matth. p. 363. mentis arcana redigente, Dei timor 
[Bened. 290-181. 1 0 70: 441 b.) spernitur, magisterium Christi neg- 
«Ὥσπερ τῷ πεπορνευκότι οὐ θέμις ligitur, judicii dies non providetur. 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, οὕτως Inflat superbia, exacerbat szvitia, 
οὐδὲ τῷ βασκαίνοντι" καὶ πολλῷ μᾶλ- perfidia prevaricatur, impatientia 
λον τούτῳ ἢ ἐκείνῳ. concutit, furit discordia, ira ferves- 
73 De Zelo et Livore. p. 223. cit; nec se jam potest cohibere vel 
(p. 154-) Late patet zeli multiplex regere, qui factus est potestatis ali- 
et foecunda pernicies. Radix est ene. Hine Dominice pacis vincu- 
malorum omnium, fons cladium, lum rumpitur, hine caritas fraterna 
seminarium delictorum, materia cul- violatur, hine adulteratur veritas, 
parum. Inde odium surgit, animo- unitas scinditur, ad hereses atque 
sitas inde procedit. Avaritiam zelus ad schismata prosilitur; dum ob- 
inflammat ; dum quis suo non po-_ trectatur sacerdotibus, dum episco- 
test esse contentus, videns alterum pis invidetur, cum quis aut queritur 
ditiorem. Ambitionem zelus excitat, non se potius ordinatum, aut dedig- 
dum cernit quis alium in honoribus _ natur alterum ferre prepositum, 
auctiorem: zelo excecante sensus 


eB. envy, covetousness, Sc. 505 


the seminary of sins, and the matter of all offences. Hence 
proceeds hatred, hence animosity arises. Envy inflames covet- 
ousness, making a man not to be content with his own, whilst 
he sees another richer than himself. Envy excites ambition, 
whilst a man sees another in greater honour than himself. 
Envy blinds our senses, and reduces the interior faculties of the 
soul under its power and dominion. Then the fear of God is 
slighted, the precepts of Christ are neglected, the day of judg- 
ment is not thought of. It puffs us up with pride, it embitters 
us with cruelty, makes us prevaricate with perfidiousness, 
shocks us with impatience, enrages us with discord, inflames us 
with anger; and a man cannot contain or govern himself who 
is now under the power of another. By this means the bond 
of divine peace is broken, brotherly charity is violated, truth 
adulterated, unity divided, and heresies and schisms take their 
original; whilst men disparage the priests, and envy the bi- 
shops, and every one complains that he himself was not or- 
dained, or takes it in dudgeon that another was preferred be- 
fore him.’ When envy was attended with any such effects as 
these, then it fell under the cognizance of public discipline ; 
not as it was an inward corruption of the mind, but as it dis- 
covered itself in some outward and vicious action, as open dis- 
sension, or heresy, or schism, or the breach of unity and peace, 
ecclesiastical or civil: which crimes being the subject of chureh- 
censure, so far as envy was concerned in any of them, so far it 
might be said to be punished by the public discipline of the 
Church, but no otherwise, for want of sufficient ground to pro- 
ceed in a legal way of evidence against it. But yet this bitter 
root gave but too many occasions to the Church to punish it in 
other species; being one of those sins that could not contain 
itself, or long lie hid, having a train of other vices commonly 
attending it, according to the observation made by Cyprian, 
and long before by St. James: [3, 16.] “ For where envying 
and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.” 
2. The like is to be observed of pride, ambition, and vain- Of pride, 
glory. These were great sins in their own nature: but, being Aare 
internal and spiritual sins in their kind, the discipline of the glory. 
Church could take no notice of them, till they discovered them- 
selyes in some enormous outward vicious actions. As, when 
pride drew men into blasphemy against God or oppression of 
BINGHAM, VOL. VI. Ee 


506 The great crimes, XVI. xiv. 


men; when ambition or vainglory made men factious and tur- 
bulent in the Church, and pushed them forward into open 
heresy or schism ; then was the proper time for the Church to 
take her spiritual sword into her hand, and make use of her 
censures for their correction. Thus we have seen the pride of 
Andronicus corrected by Synesius7, bishop of Ptolemais, when 
it brake forth into open blasphemy against Christ : and thus 
all along heretics and schismatics found their punishment, 
when their ambition and restless spirit proceeded so far as to 
make some open breach upon the faith or unity of the 
Church. But in these cases pride was rather punished in 
other species of sin, blasphemy, heresy, or schism; for the 
censure of which the reader must look back into the former 
parts of this Book, [especially the sixth and seventh chapters.] 
Of covet- 3. The same observation is to be carried further, and made 
ousness. . . 
upon covetousness, which is another of those three great lusts 
that reign in the world, the lust of the heart, the lust of the 
eye, and the pride of life. Covetousness, which is the lust of 
the eye, is always a very great sin before God; being, as the 
Apostle terms it, “ idolatry, and the root of all evil;” [Col. 3, 
5. 1 Tim. 6, 10.] and even when it is only conceived in the 
mind it makes a man odious to his Maker. But because God 
sees not as man sees, for God looks upon the heart, therefore 
before covetousness can render a man a proper object of the 
Church’s discipline it must discover itself in some visible act of 
injustice, as theft, oppression, or fraud, under which appear- 
ances, but not otherwise, it was liable to the Church’s judgment 
and censure. And this is what Gregory Nyssen75 observes, 
that among all the species of covetousness none were expiated 
by solemn penance, but such as theft and violation of graves, 
that is, such instances of covetousness as manifested themselves 
in some outward and apparent evil action. 
Con 4, And the like is to be said of the lust of the heart, or 
i carnal lusts, and sins of uncleanness. Though the evil thoughts 
and intentions of the heart are sinful before God in general: 
for “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear 
me :” [Ps. 66, 18.] and though in particular, “ He that looks 
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with 


74 Ep.58. See ch. 2. ss. 6 and 8. 75 Ep. ad Letoium. c. 6. See be- 
pp. 84, 87. nn. 63 and 72. fore ch. 6. 8. 24. p. 31]. n. 59. 


§ 3,4. envy, covetousness, §c. 507 


her already in his heart;” [Matth. 5, 28.} yet this was not 
punishable in the discipline of the Church : because the Church 
is no judge of the secret intentions, but only of the outward 
and visible actions, that carry scandal as well as sin in them, 
Therefore we have observed before’, out of the Council of 
Neocesarea’7, that no one was to be excommunicated for sins 
only in design and intention. Ifa man purpose in his heart to 
commit fornication with a woman, but his lust proceed not into 
action, it is apparent he is delivered by grace, says the canon; 
and therefore, though he was culpable before God, yet the 
Church inflicted not the censure of excommunication on him. 
because her discipline extended not to men’s private thoughts, 
but only to their outward actions. And this was the case of 
all transgressions that were purely against this command: they 
might be punished under other species of sin, but not as they 
were only sins of the heart, because, as such, human judicature 
could take no cognizance of them. 

We have now gone through the several branches of duty 
and transgression, and therein taken a full view of the extent 
of the discipline of the Church; whereby it appears that the 
objects of ecclesiastical discipline were not only the three great 
sins of idolatry, adultery, and murder, but all other crimes 
that come under the denomination of scandalous and great 
transgressions. And thus far the discipline of the Church 
related to all persons in general, but there were some punish- 
ments peculiar to delinquent clergymen, which, because they 
are matter of particular inquiry, I shall make them the subject 
of the following Book. 


76 Ch. 3. 8.17. p. 193. συγκαθευδῆσαι per’ αὐτῆς, μὴ ἔλθῃ δὲ 
77 Ὁ. 4. (t. 1. p. 1481 b.) ᾿Εὰν εἰς ἔργον αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐνθύμησις, φαίνεται 
πρόθηταί τις ἐπιθυμῆσαι γυναικὸς, ὅτι ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος ἐρρύσθη. 





END OF VOL, VI. 


End of the seventh volume of the Original Edition, which volume, 
containing this Book only, was first published in 1720. 











ὃς 
ee νον “eae wily ιν ἦν leagle *yind-ainiade so 
Seiki oft Gikdede brit) ὅδε ΝΣ 
[>Re tpi eal ἡ tnd ee? πάτον acts” pee etietay oh 
reals ΝΣ εν “ie ta inl oe @ eee Fab 
τ εν a Se ee τα eye 
PT ) om ie ke “tw “As oral 
op 1) ἘΠῚ fi a 1] ἐδφρϑρόψ sy PAE. 
Gdn = 1h ΓΝ aot Jind 4 r aidten! oi 
Prec wht ante aut νὰ Nem hare aoa 
“9 p \anet? IGE ἯΙ Ser, ἐν υχ ΠΡ τυ, 
al τοῦδ σιν Τὼ aname ofrecer 
ἐ) τὴν ῬΑ tes Stee εὖ ΤᾺ Cs? ee! 


Ὕ (49 δι. ἀν ἢ} aiid ν᾽ ἐδὼ se 
γυν 4 {ἢ πὲ “li GRY 24h ΣΦΙΣΙ 8 
baw ν» ΤΥ ᾽ν» νον ὩΣ: bet 


δ ‘ A OM) νεών ἢ it od? ἸΌΝ 
; Ἂν 
eri? O41 iota 


Ῥ ie ἢ 16 06} 


a 


τωι ἢ ὁ τοῦδε στῶν 


φᾳῷ 











@ SOO tt νῷ 90 bl 6€ 
Ὁ WALI SOd JIHS AVE JONVY 6 





MAIASNMOG LV TL